NHL
2026 Olympic
Hockey
From first to 12th, here’s our list of the best teams that Canada and the United States have brought to the Olympics. Jamie Squire / Getty Images
The NHL may be on hiatus, but that won’t stop the Rankings Boys from ranking.
We’re here today with a very special edition of the Power Rankings with an Olympic twist: a ranking of the 12 Canadian and American Olympic men’s teams with NHL talent, going back to 1998. To help, we needed at least one more Canadian mind in the mix to make sure we have all of our facts straight (some of us were 6 years old in 1998). Naturally, we enlisted the help of our resident hockey historian, Sean McIndoe, who you may know from The Other Rankings.
Advertisement
The exercise started with an on-paper look at each team’s ability at the time based on the ratings of the players on it, but all that nerdy mumbo-jumbo was then promptly thrown out in favor of vibes, narratives and who actually won anything.
From first to 12th, here’s our list of the best teams that Canada and the United States have brought to the Olympics. Enjoy!
Player ratings from 2010, 2014 and 2026 are based on projected values at the end of each season using The Athletic’s NHL model. Ratings from 1998, 2002 and 2006 are based on a weighted three-year average of an estimation of those ratings using stats available at the time. Each rating is an estimation of a player’s impact on a team’s goal difference and does not account for any change in role at the Olympics.
Gentille rank: 2
Luszczyszyn rank: 1
McIndoe Rank: 1
What made the team special
We always talk about the pressure Canadian teams face in a best-on-best, and with good reason — win gold and you’re a hero, come back with anything else and you’re a bum. But it’s almost impossible to describe the feeling in the country heading into 2002, after a loss to Team USA in the 1996 World Cup and then the disaster of Nagano in 1998. It wouldn’t be hyperbole to say that Canada was a hockey nation in crisis, with a 50-year gold medal drought hanging over it all.
Enter one of the most star-studded teams the world has ever seen, led by a returning Mario Lemieux. Mix in the skill of Joe Sakic and Steve Yzerman, the power games of Jarome Iginla and Brendan Shanahan, a strong blue line led by Chris Pronger, and Martin Brodeur and Curtis Joseph in goal, and the roster looked unbeatable.
And that’s where the pressure came in. If Canada couldn’t win gold with this lineup, would it be time to concede that the sport had passed us by?
Advertisement
Why the team landed here
Because they won. Not just that, because as we know today, Canada wins a lot in these tournaments. We didn’t have that to fall back on in 2002. This team was a trapeze act without a net. And they stuck the landing, with authority.
It all came down to the NHL’s ideal matchup: Team Canada, playing for gold against the Americans, who’d beaten them in 1996, on U.S. home ice. I can still remember sneaking out of my Ottawa apartment during the first intermission to hit a nearby convenience store, and being stunned at how absolutely empty the streets were. It really felt like the entire country was watching the game, ready to either explode or collapse.
We got to explode. The Canadians won a battle that was close until the dying minutes, led by Joe Sakic’s monster game. And an entire country got to finally exhale.
Today’s Team Canada is feeling the pressure, as always. But it’s the pressure of high expectations, not of existential doubt. We’ll never see anything quite like the 2002 team ever again. And that’s good news, because I’m not sure a country’s hearts could handle it. — McIndoe
Gentille rank: 1
Luszczyszyn rank: 3
McIndoe Rank: 2
What made the team special
On paper, this isn’t the most impressive roster Canada has ever put together. It’s packed from top to bottom, obviously, but there’s a surprisingly long list of Hall of Very Good guys to be found up front — Mike Richards, Rick Nash, Dany Heatley and Eric Staal among them. But it had a phenomenal blue line, strong goaltending and Sidney Crosby in his absolute prime. And it also had home ice, an advantage that also served to ratchet up expectations.
Why the team landed here
Because of the Golden Goal. It’s fair to wonder how this team is remembered if Zach Parise doesn’t send the game to overtime with seconds left in the third period, and Canada just holds on for a 2-1 regulation win. Gold is gold, obviously, and winning it in front of Canadian fans would have made it memorable. But Crosby’s OT winner is the exclamation point, a moment that instantly joined 1972 Paul Henderson and 1987 Mario Lemieux among the country’s most iconic sports memories.
We haven’t seen that from any of the other Olympic teams, even the fabled 2002 edition. It’s the moment you think of as soon as you hear “2010.” When the greatest player of his generation scores easily the biggest goal of this life, you know you’ve seen something special. — McIndoe
Advertisement
Gentille rank: 3
Luszczyszyn rank: 2
McIndoe Rank: 3
What made the team special
At the height of the Corsi era, Canada’s 2014 team was a perfect encapsulation of hockey at the time — and one of the best ever constructed. Pure puck possession was the name of the game and this team had it in spades up and down the lineup. Crosby, near the peak of his powers, was aided by some of the best two-way players in the world in Jonathan Toews, Patrice Bergeron and Ryan Getzlaf.
The real prize to that effect, though, was the back end. The top five were a who’s-who of the best two-way defensemen of the era, creating arguably Canada’s deepest-ever blue line. The top four of Duncan Keith, Drew Doughty, Shea Weber and Marc-Edouard Vlasic was unbelievable, while Alex Pietrangelo was an underrated force of his own at the time. Even Jay Bouwmeester looks a lot better in hindsight.
Put Carey Price, one of the best goalies in the world, behind that group and Canada had the keys to be a defensive-minded, puck-possession powerhouse. For the tournament, Canada outshot opponents 40.2-21.5 on average per game, its best ever margin at the Olympics, at a time when shot counts mattered a whole lot.
Why the team landed here
There’s one thing the other two Canadian gold-medal winners have that this one doesn’t, and that’s any aura whatsoever (and that started with the jerseys, woof).
This team was boringly dominant, an inevitable defensive machine hell-bent on winning every game in the most excruciating, possession-driven slog imaginable. And that’s a compliment to their robotic ability to control the puck like no other team. They won every game, allowing only three goals in six games, and for that they may be Canada’s best team. The 2014 team was the peak of Babcockian hockey; they just didn’t have any of the magic of 2002 or 2010. — Luszczyszyn
Gentille rank: 4
Luszczyszyn rank: 5
McIndoe Rank: 4
What makes the team special
Good as Jack Eichel and Auston Matthews may be, we’re not going to argue that the U.S. has top-of-the-roster center depth on par with the Canadians. Those guys are not Connor McDavid or Nathan MacKinnon — and that’s OK. What they are, though, is a terrific starting point, and the exact sort of ultra-elite NHL player previous American rosters have lacked. Behind them is a group of competent, productive forwards with diverse skill sets that, en masse, are good enough to stop the Americans from losing any games on paper.
Advertisement
Defensively, there’s a world in which Quinn Hughes turns the Hughes vs. Cale Makar debate into a coin flip, and Zach Werenski might give the U.S. the edge as the No. 2 defenseman.
Their biggest theoretical edge, though, is Connor Hellebuyck. He’s been mediocre this season, and his last few postseasons have been shaky, but there’s not a goalie on Earth more capable — or more experienced — at closing talent gaps.
Why the team might disappoint
Because the Americans left too much goal-scoring at home. Perhaps you’ve read a thing or two about this. It might not be purely likely that the U.S. loses an elimination game 3-2, but it’s certainly possible — and if that happens, look out.
Another issue, which we alluded to, is that Hellebuyck simply hasn’t been all that good dating to the spring of 2025. If he’s less than great, and if the Canadian goaltending situation doesn’t implode, the Americans’ biggest edge will disappear in a hurry.
Why the team landed here
Because McIndoe artificially pushed the Canadian team down the list. He’s a superstitious guy. It’s fine.
They’re also in this spot because the roster, imperfect as it is, feels like the culmination of a generation’s worth of effort to build up a talent base capable of meaningfully competing with Canada in a gold medal game, and not just because of Ryan Miller-caliber heroics. — Gentille
Gentille rank: 5
Luszczyszyn rank: 4
McIndoe Rank: 6
What makes the team special
Past Canadian champions had a singular generational talent at the top to lean on. Mario Lemieux in 2002. Sidney Crosby in 2010 and 2014. This one might have an entire family tree worthy of the moniker. Crosby is still around as captain, and he’s joined by the best player in the world in Connor McDavid, the guy who sometimes challenges that fact in Nathan MacKinnon, and the future best player in the world in Macklin Celebrini. Throw in Cale Makar, the best defenseman Canada has ever brought to the Olympics, and this roster is stacked. As good as Canada’s high-end talent always is, this is without question their greatest group of superstars.
Advertisement
Beyond that, it’s the usual reason that Canada is one of the teams to beat: a deep group of skaters with an elite blend of versatile two-way ability. The elite guys will carry Canada as far as it goes, but it’s the rest that make Canada worthy of a fourth gold.
Why the team might disappoint
As you’ve heard ad nauseam over the last several years, if anything holds Canada back, it’s going to be goaltending. That’s if Jordan Binnington is the de facto starter, though, because Canada does have an answer to the problem on its roster. Whether Canada makes the right decision is the big story here.
Aside from the Binnington question, a lack of offensive firepower from the back end beyond Makar might be of some concern. Canada has a lot of sturdy two-way defenders, but aren’t quite as high on dynamic puck-movers.
Why the team landed here
On paper, this could be the best roster Canada has ever brought to the Olympics. The gold medal potential puts this group ahead of all the teams that fell short before it, but behind the ones that actually won. If that happens, we can have a new debate regarding where the new champions stand. Depending on how they do it, they may have a legitimate argument for the best of the best. Until then, they’re fifth. — Luszczyszyn
Gentille rank: 7
Luszczyszyn rank: 6
McIndoe Rank: 5
What made the team special
It’s tough to imagine a scenario in which the ’02 Americans didn’t improve on … whatever went on at Nagano in 1998. “Don’t crash out in the quarterfinals or get into trouble in the Olympic Village” was a reasonably low expectation. The roster, though, had legitimate issues. Outside of Keith Tkachuk, whose birthday was a few weeks after the tournament, the best players were all over 30 — some significantly.
That, combined with the post-’98 hangover (pun intended) blunted expectations. So, winning silver (and hanging around with Canada until the dam broke during a 2-2 gold medal game) was a nice outcome. It also provided some measure of redemption for the Nagano holdovers; the John LeClair-Mike Modano-Brett Hull line was particularly terrific and Mike Richter was 1994-caliber (.932 save percentage) despite being 36 years old. It also served as an appropriate capstone to Herb Brooks’ career with USA Hockey, even though his work with another Olympic team was a bit more notable.
Advertisement
Why the team landed here
It’s not the best collection of American NHL players to compete at the Olympics, and it might not be particularly close, but the ’02 team deserves a fair amount of shine for getting the train back onto the tracks after ’98 and maximizing the talent they had on hand. In that regard, it served as a template of sorts for the three ensuing Games. — Gentille
Gentille rank: 6
Luszczyszyn rank: 7
McIndoe Rank: 7
What made the team special
Ryan Miller, mainly. That’s not us trying to be funny or flippant. Miller was that great, that important and that memorable for the U.S. in Vancouver. The stats are incredible on their own: a .946 save percentage and 1.35 GAA, both Olympic records; a 42-save performance in a preliminary win over Canada; 139 saves on 147 shots. That was all enough to earn him the MVP and U.S hockey hero status despite a loss in the gold medal game. And even then, it took Sidney Crosby to beat him. No shame in that.
Zach Parise also deserves a bit of credit. He and Jamie Langenbrunner tied for the U.S. lead in both goals and points (4G, 4A), and it was Parise who scored on a net-front scramble with 24 seconds remaining to send the gold medal game to overtime.
Why the team landed here
Sidney Crosby, mainly. If he doesn’t call for the puck from Jarome Iginla, who knows what happens? Instead, the outcome was the outcome, and a huge chunk of the 2010 team’s legacy is landing in the middle of lists like this one. Outside of Miller, they were dramatically undermanned, and while they came closer than any other NHL-era U.S. Olympic team, it wasn’t close enough. — Gentille
Gentille rank: 9
Luszczyszyn rank: 9
McIndoe Rank: 8
What made the team disappoint
After losing the gold medal game in 2010, the Americans came back a little stronger, wiser and deeper across the board. The bottom of the lineup had more difference-makers, the top had more firepower and the defense had significantly less Jack Johnson. The Americans inched closer to Canada on paper and dominated the group stage thanks to an incredible top line of Joe Pavelski, Phil Kessel and James van Riemsdyk.
Advertisement
Ultimately, it still wasn’t enough to get by Canada in the semifinal, where the difference in Crosby-level talent, two-way ability and defensive depth was too much to overcome.
Why the team landed here
Had the Americans faced Canada in the gold medal game rather than the semifinal, perhaps they’d rank higher here. The 2014 team may have been better on paper than the 2010 version, but it’s tough to argue in favor of a team that came away with nothing after a no-show in the bronze medal game. — Luszczyszyn
Gentille rank: 8
Luszczyszyn rank: 8
McIndoe Rank: 12
What made the team disappoint
Team Canada GM Bobby Clarke sure made some, um, interesting picks when it came time to fill out his lineup.
This was the year of the infamous “Ghost Roster,” the idea that instead of taking the best players, a team should identify the roles it needs to fill and then pick the ideal player for each spot. Within reason, the approach means you don’t just load up on 12 scoring forwards who can’t backcheck or kill penalties. Taken to the extreme, it gets you Rob Zamuner on an Olympic roster. Clarke went with option two. He also left players like Mark Messier and Scott Niedermayer at home, while giving the captaincy to his own player, Eric Lindros, over Wayne Gretzky or Ray Bourque.
Honestly, it took some guts. And if it had worked, Clarke would have been a genius. It did not work.
Why the team landed here
We can point to Clarke’s lineup, or to some of head coach Marc Crawford’s weird decisions, or to the guys who were either left behind or out with injuries. But really, the answer here is: Dominik Hasek. What happens when the greatest goalie in the world goes on a heater? His team wins. And that was the story in Nagano.
If Canada hadn’t run into prime Hasek, they probably come home with a medal, and maybe even find their way to gold. Instead, they didn’t win a thing, and are remembered as the most disappointing best-on-best team Canada has ever assembled. Is that fair? Maybe not, but it’s life in a short tournament. — McIndoe
Advertisement
Gentille rank: 10
Luszczyszyn rank: 11
McIndoe Rank: 9
What made the team disappoint
A Canadian teenager, a budding Canadian sportswriter and a college-aged Pittsburgh native walk into a bar and scream the same thing into the void: Where the hell is Sidney Crosby? We’re all still screaming it 20 years later. Based on the numbers in the lineup chart above, Crosby would’ve already been a second-line-worthy talent for Team Canada at age 18 (plus-15 Net Rating); they decided to take Kris Draper instead.
That’s where the disappointment began, and it didn’t go away at a tournament where Canada struggled to score. They got shut out by Switzerland and Finland in back-to-back games during the group stage and then again in the quarterfinal against Russia. Maybe the 18-year-old phenom might’ve helped! And hey, while we’re at it, maybe only taking two of the top five Canadian scorers (leaving out Jason Spezza, Eric Staal and Marc Savard) at the time was also a bad call!
There were some things outside of Canada’s control that might’ve changed the tournament, like Scott Niedermayer being unavailable due to injury. This was also a transition year between generational talents where the last one was past his prime and the new one wasn’t quite ready for “best Canadian in the world” honors yet. Even with that lack of usual high-end talent in mind, Canada didn’t do itself enough favors depth-wise to make up for it.
Why the team landed here
This is easily the most disappointing Canadian team ever brought to the Olympics, fraught with a weaker class of talent and plenty of unforced errors to exacerbate the problem. Being the only Canadian team not to make it to the semifinal earns its spot near the bottom. But on paper, this roster should’ve still been strong enough to take on the American quarterfinal losers below. — Luszczyszyn
Gentille rank: 11
Luszczyszyn rank: 10
McIndoe Rank: 11
What made the team disappoint
This was the first and still only best-on-best tournament where Team USA entered as the defending champs. You could argue that this was also the only best-on-best tournament where they were the favorite. I’m not sure you could make a case for anything else as the biggest disappointment, though. No medal, no great moments and no lasting memories other than creating an international incident by trashing their hotel rooms. Other than that, everything went great.
Advertisement
Why the team landed here
I realize the model doesn’t love this roster relative to the others, but I can’t really criticize the strategy of (basically) running back the 1996 World Cup winning formula. On paper, this team should have at least played for a medal. Instead, they won just one game in the round robin, that one coming over Belarus in between losses to Sweden and Canada. That was followed by a quarterfinal exit against the Czechs, and that was it.
What went wrong? I’m still not completely sure, but this sure seemed like a team that figured the battle for global hockey supremacy had already been won. Instead, it was about to heat up even more than before. — McIndoe
Gentille rank: 12
Luszczyszyn rank: 12
McIndoe Rank: 10
What made the team disappoint
They weren’t just bad — they were boring. If you’re going to lose in the quarterfinals, at least destroy some cheap hotel-room furniture on your way out of town, y’know? The Americans’ issues in Turin, though, began and ended with a deficient roster. If you want to illustrate just how bad things were, you’ve got your pick of data points. Craig Conroy led the team in points, with five; only three players scored more than one goal. Their best defenseman, all due respect, was Mathieu Schneider. If this were an NHL team, we’re not sure it would be a Cup contender. The fact Finland only beat them 4-3 is an accomplishment in itself.
Why the team landed here
The Chelios/Hull/Modano core had aged out as relevant international players, and the core of the 2010 and 2014 teams weren’t quite ready to fill the void. The end result is a roster without any memorable performances and a tournament without any memorable moments (for the Americans, at least). Turin provided a necessary bit of connective tissue between generations — and that’s about the nicest thing anyone could say about it. — Gentille
Data via Evolving-Hockey, Hockey Stat Cards and NHL
Spot the pattern. Connect the terms
Find the hidden link between sports terms
Play today's puzzle
Hockey News