Sweden, Finland reveal 2026 Olympic men's hockey rosters - Landeskog

The headline stories arrived immediately: Sweden’s roster leans into elite blue-line pedigree and high-end finishing, highlighted by the return of Gabriel Landeskog alongside established stars such as William Nylander, Elias Pettersson, Victor Hedman and Erik Karlsson.

Finland, meanwhile, will defend its 2022 Olympic title without Aleksander Barkov due to a significant knee injury, reshaping the leadership and matchup hierarchy of a team built around structure, heavy two-way minutes, and a core of familiar club connections.

Sweden’s roster: world-class defense, a reshaped crease, and a Landeskog swing

Sweden’s selections underline a belief that tournament hockey still runs through the back end. The defensive group features Hedman, Karlsson, Rasmus Dahlin and Gustav Forsling, supported by Jonas Brodin and Rasmus Andersson, with Oliver Ekman-Larsson and Philip Broberg rounding out a unit designed to handle pace, retrieval pressure and power-play distribution.

For a short Olympic event where single games swing medal paths, that caliber of defense offers a high floor: fewer chaotic shifts, fewer scrambling sequences, and more controlled exits that keep Sweden’s forwards in attack posture.

Team Sweden roster (25)

The roster’s most debated element is not the star power at the top, but the set of risk-managed choices underneath it—particularly in goal and on the final defensive spots. Sweden moved away from a more veteran goaltending picture from earlier international cycles and elevated Jesper Wallstedt, pairing him with Filip Gustavsson and Jacob Markström.

That decision came with a prominent omission: Linus Ullmark did not make the team. The selection logic, as framed publicly, was performance-driven rather than reputation-driven, with Wallstedt’s season form cited as a decisive factor.

Wallstedt entered roster-announcement week with an 11-2-3 record and a .928 save percentage, numbers that strengthened the argument for riding current form in a format where goaltending volatility often defines the medal round.

Just as importantly, the Gustavsson–Wallstedt pairing carries everyday familiarity at club level, an underappreciated advantage in compressed events where communication details—rim reads, puck-handling patterns, and post-integration habits—either save goals or create them.

The biggest Sweden surprise: the Landeskog selection and what it signals

Landeskog’s inclusion is the roster’s defining swing.

It is not simply a sentimental story about a star returning to a national sweater; it is a tactical bet that a physically imposing, playoff-tested winger with leadership gravity can raise Sweden’s competitive edge in the most difficult minutes—late leads, net-front contests, and emotional response shifts after goals against.

In Olympic play, the teams that survive the quarterfinal pressure frequently carry at least one forward line capable of playing “heavy” without losing speed.

Sweden’s forward group is rich in finishing and transition skill—Nylander, Pettersson, Bratt, Raymond, Forsberg, Kempe—but Landeskog adds a different problem for opponents: a forward who wins space rather than simply exploiting it. The coaching staff’s willingness to take that roster slot indicates an emphasis on playoff-like traits, not only pure scoring totals.

Sweden snubs: Ekholm and the crowded blue-line math

The most emotionally resonant omission was Mattias Ekholm. Ekholm was part of Sweden’s recent best-on-best group, and the decision required direct communication acknowledging how tight the margins had become inside a defense-first program.

The underlying logic is familiar in elite international selection: Sweden’s defense pool is so deep that the final choices often hinge on skating profile, puck-carry efficiency, and role fit rather than overall quality.

Broberg’s selection over Ekholm is the clearest representation of that philosophy. The pick favors a younger, more mobile defender profile suited for quick-turn Olympic shifts and repeated retrievals against forechecks built around speed.

Ekman-Larsson’s presence points the same direction—another defender whose game supports puck movement and transition patterns rather than purely defensive-zone containment.

Other notable Sweden omissions include forwards Viktor Arvidsson and Gustav Nyquist, both of whom were part of the prior high-end international group, plus Ullmark in goal.

Each omission is defensible in isolation; together, they show that Sweden prioritized a specific build: speed, puck-moving defense, and a crease aligned to current-season performance.

Sweden expectations: a medal build, with two pressure points

Sweden enters Milano Cortina as a team designed for the medal rounds, but two pressure points loom.

First, Hedman’s health status sits over the entire architecture. Hedman was named despite recovery from elbow surgery, with the expectation of availability by the Games.

Without a fully effective Hedman, Sweden’s power-play structure and matchups against the heaviest opponents change materially. With him near full strength, Sweden’s defense tilts from “excellent” into “tournament-defining.”

Second, Sweden’s forward group has abundant high-end wings, but the center spine remains a central storyline. Mika Zibanejad, Elias Lindholm, Leo Carlsson, Joel Eriksson Ek and Alexander Wennberg provide a mix of two-way structure, faceoff utility, and matchup flexibility, but the degree of offensive creation through the middle—especially against teams that collapse quickly—will determine whether Sweden’s possession becomes goals or simply zone time.

In a short format with limited practice time, Sweden’s most reliable scoring may arrive through defense activation and quick-strike wings rather than extended, layered center-driven cycles.

Finland’s roster: familiar chemistry, Barkov’s absence, and a structural identity

Finland’s announcement carried a dual message: confidence in an established program identity, and acceptance that the roster would not have its most complete two-way center.

Barkov’s injury removes a rare archetype—an elite shutdown pivot who also drives offense—and it shifts the burden of leadership and matchup difficulty onto the remaining core.

Team Finland roster (25)

The roster retains a defining characteristic of Finland’s best tournament teams: club-based familiarity inside the spine. Four key skaters share the same NHL dressing room in Dallas—Rantanen, Hintz, Heiskanen and Lindell—offering pre-built chemistry in transition reads, defensive rotations, and special-teams detail.

The forward group also features a Florida cluster (including Lundell and Luostarinen), reinforcing a roster design that values shared systems and role clarity.

Finland surprises: Kapanen’s rise and the lone Europe-based skater

Oliver Kapanen’s inclusion is one of Finland’s most interesting choices because it signals openness to upside within a roster that often leans veteran and role-defined.

In a Barkov-less environment, additional offense is not simply helpful; it is required. Kapanen, along with Eeli Tolvanen and Joel Kiviranta, represents the program’s answer to that need, adding finishing threats and lineup versatility.

The other distinctive roster element is Mikko Lehtonen, the only non-NHL player in the group, selected while playing for ZSC Lions in Switzerland.

That decision reflects a long-standing Finnish trait in international selection: league location matters less than role reliability, especially for defenders asked to deliver clean minutes, correct reads, and low-variance execution. Finland’s coaching staff framed the defensive group as big and experienced, built around Heiskanen as the high-end driver.

Finland snubs: Barkov and Laine reshape the forward ceiling

Barkov’s absence is not a selection controversy but it functions like the tournament’s most consequential “snub” because it alters Finland’s maximum ceiling.

Barkov’s two-way dominance traditionally allows Finland to assign difficult matchups without sacrificing offense, freeing other lines for favorable usage. Without him, Finland’s center rotation becomes more matchup-dependent and more reliant on collective structure.

Patrik Laine also missed the roster, widely attributed to injury limitations following surgery and a shortened season availability. Finland’s forward group, already built more on two-way execution than pure star-driven scoring, loses another potential game-breaking shooter.

The remaining core—Rantanen, Aho, Hintz, Teräväinen, Lehkonen—still carries high-end finishing and play-driving, but the absence of additional elite shot creation narrows the margin in tight medal-round games.

Finland expectations: the program’s identity remains intact, even with less star power

Finland’s tournament identity is stable: structured layers through the neutral zone, disciplined support beneath the puck, and a preference for controlled counterattacks rather than extended high-risk trading.

That identity tends to travel well in short events because it reduces the number of “system decisions” players must make under pressure—an advantage when rosters assemble quickly and practice time is limited.

The crucial question is whether enough offense exists to win four high-level games in the knockout path. Rantanen’s scoring profile and Heiskanen’s ability to control tempo from the back end are central to that equation.

Saros provides the type of goaltending base that supports Finland’s style: technically efficient, capable of preserving tight games where Finland prefers to live.

The Sweden–Finland collision course: Group B stakes arrive early

Because Sweden and Finland share Group B with Italy and Slovakia, the Feb. 13 head-to-head is positioned to shape quarterfinal pathways and avoid a more dangerous early knockout matchup.

In this format, group winners and the best second-place team receive byes into the quarterfinals, while the remaining teams enter single-elimination qualification games. That structure magnifies the value of early results: the difference between first and second is not symbolic, it is structural—rest, matchup quality, and variance exposure.

Stylistically, the matchup offers a clean contrast. Sweden’s edge sits in blue-line star power and wing finishing depth, while Finland’s advantage sits in system clarity, club-based chemistry inside key pairings, and a long track record of winning tight international games through structure.

Sweden’s roster decisions indicate an intent to raise its ceiling—Wallstedt’s form-driven rise in goal, Broberg’s mobility on defense, Landeskog’s heavy-minute profile up front. Finland’s selections indicate an intent to keep its foundation intact despite losing its most complete center—adding forward options to replace missing offense while leaning on Heiskanen-led defense and established goaltending.

Both rosters look built for February rather than for debate in January. Sweden appears to be chasing a complete tournament package—elite defense, enough two-way centers, and a forward group capable of finishing quickly once the puck moves north. Finland appears to be defending a program identity—structured, stubborn, and optimized for tight games—while accepting that Barkov’s injury removes a unique matchup tool and raises the premium on execution.

The result is a Nordic rivalry that arrives with unusually high stakes early in the Olympic schedule, and two rosters that suggest the margin between a semifinal and a quarterfinal exit will be defined less by star names than by whether each team’s chosen roster “bets” pay off under medal-round pressure.