1972 Summit Series: shame or glory?

[Killion]

1972 was really a transitional period for North American hockey when everything was changing.... High salaries were relatively new, and it's not clear that players and teams had really adjusted to the new order where they didn't have to work during the offseason. Much easier to get out of shape when you could party all the time.... In the post-expansion era, most star players played for teams that were going to make the playoffs for sure, so they had the luxury of playing themselves into shape during the season. This wasn't the case in the Original Six. If the series was played in 1966, I think the Canadians would have been better prepared.

... ya absolutely. The generation of players that came of age in the mid through late 60's & early 70's lived through a period of changing economic times but more importantly, the "Me Generation" tearing up older more conservative social more's, many completely embracing the freedoms of the era & its decadence. Derek Sanderson the Poster Boy for this newfound freedom, giving the finger to "The Man". The Soviets meanwhile were trapped in a 1950's Cold War Vacuum, highly disciplined, in beyond fighting shape, responsible, systematic, real throwbacks to say society in ultra Conservative Toronto of the 50's, their heads screwed on even tighter though living under Communist rule. They were full time Soldiers for Gods sake. Polar opposites to the hippy happy slappy party boys, one or two self absorbed lotharios etc etc etc employed by Team Canada.

1) Quite possible, but if we stick with the autumn date and the issue of training camps, the core question for me is: would a NHL team like the Canadiens have been in better shape than Team Canada in September 1972?

2) On the other hand I think the upset in Game 1 and the closeness of the series was a catalyst for transatlantic hockey. The Super Series and the Canada Cup wouldn't have been organized (at least not as early) without the shockwave and excitement the Summit sent through Canada.

1) Given the exact same timing, yes, the Habs wouldve been in better condition physically and as they were a "team" lack of cohesion & unity not nearly as pronounced as they were with Team Canada and its "issues". Additionally, and though I love the guys, dont believe Sinden (regardless of his experiences in 58 & 60, SC Wins with Boston) and Ferguson (not known for being "highly creative & astute" as a player nor as a Coach/GM) were the right selections to be picking players, running the bench. Pollock, Bowman et al far superior hockey minds.

2) Yes, I agree. Unfortunately, R. Alan Eagleson "QC" smelt the blood in the water as well. Embarked upon a near on twenty year Grift, influencing everything from GM to Coaching & player selections to having his buddies at Hockey Canada appoint another buddy to handle sponsorships to appointing another to handle insurance matters to another & another carrying Samsonites full of cash into the Soviet Union, Switzerland, London, the Channel Islands and all points in between in subsequent series & tournaments. And so therefore Theo, every single event, including the 72 Summit Series with which Eagleson was associated is insofar as Im concerned is absolutely "suspect".

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

... ya absolutely. The generation of players that came of age in the mid through late 60's & early 70's lived through a period of changing economic times but more importantly, the "Me Generation" tearing up older more conservative social more's, many completely embracing the freedoms of the era & its decadence. Derek Sanderson the Poster Boy for this newfound freedom, giving the finger to "The Man". The Soviets meanwhile were trapped in a 1950's Cold War Vacuum, highly disciplined, in beyond fighting shape, responsible, systematic, real throwbacks to say society in ultra Conservative Toronto of the 50's, their heads screwed on even tighter though living under Communist rule. They were full time Soldiers for Gods sake. Polar opposites to the hippy happy slappy party boys, one or two self absorbed lotharios etc etc etc employed by Team Canada.



1) Given the exact same timing, yes, the Habs wouldve been in better condition physically and as they were a "team" lack of cohesion & unity not nearly as pronounced as they were with Team Canada and its "issues". Additionally, and though I love the guys, dont believe Sinden (regardless of his experiences in 58 & 60, SC Wins with Boston) and Ferguson (not known for being "highly creative & astute" as a player nor as a Coach/GM) were the right selections to be picking players, running the bench. Pollock, Bowman et al far superior hockey minds.

2) Yes, I agree. Unfortunately, R. Alan Eagleson "QC" smelt the blood in the water as well. Embarked upon a near on twenty year Grift, influencing everything from GM to Coaching & player selections to having his buddies at Hockey Canada appoint another buddy to handle sponsorships to appointing another to handle insurance matters to another & another carrying Samsonites full of cash into the Soviet Union, Switzerland, London, the Channel Islands and all points in between in subsequent series & tournaments. And so therefore Theo, every single event, including the 72 Summit Series with which Eagleson was associated is insofar as Im concerned is absolutely "suspect".

Didn't Bowman coach the 1979 Challenge Cup and 1981 Canada Cup teams?

 

[reckoning]

I picked up Brad Park's recent book the other day, and this is what he said about the incident:

"I never heard the conversation between Clarke and Ferguson. I never saw the chop until 25 years later on video. When I did see it, I was appalled by it. I admired what Kharlamov could do on the ice, but in my mind I felt we could stop him. I don't think we had to resort to that. There were a lot of other Soviet players that were dangerous as well. No one ever relies on just one guy. So I wouldn't say that it shortchanged our victory, but I'm saddened that it happened anyway."

In other words, he's agreeing with what most people in this thread have said: The incident was shameful, the victory wasn't.

 

[Killion]

Didn't Bowman coach the 1979 Challenge Cup and 1981 Canada Cup teams?

... yes indeed Mr.Bonvie. And just why would you bring that up?

 

[mbhhofr]

Game 8 between the 2nd and 3rd period:

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2012/09/...riod-storm-for-canada-in-summit-series-game-8

 

[Royal Canuck]

Canadian hockey was brutal and much more physical than the Soviets style was, and if Canada resorted to dirty work, well... It worked and that's what matters. The Bobby Clarke incident is distasteful, but I wouldn't say it changed Canada's fate in winning the series IMO.

 

[Macman]

TSN showed Game 8 last night. The teams were soooo sloooow, even the Soviets. Modern teams would skate circles around them. It's amazing how the pace of hockey picked up over the 15 years from the summit to the '87 Canada Cup.

I'd forgotten how bad the TV feed was from Moscow. We saw better pictures from the moon. At one point in the first perod you could actually see a hand reach into the picture to place a super of a player's name in cyrillic script.

 

[Corto]

As someone who cheered for Canada for a long time because of Joe Sakic:

What Clarke and Ferguson conspired to do was disgusting, and was the single biggest moment of the series.

I don't really care about how Canadians perceived the series (communism vs capitalism, etc.), I watched the games on tape 30 years after the games were played expecting to see slow, romantic hockey and I ended up watching a team being outplayed at actual hockey and thuggery winning over sportsmanship.

******* Clarke and ******* Ferguson.
Pathetic.

 

[Zine]

So if anything they were unwilling to work out, but not unable.

BTW I'm not so sure about the training camp and the scouting, see http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=50899333&postcount=7.

Those quotes are telling. I'm strongly thinking the "we were out of shape" is nothing more than an excuse.

Its difficult to believe that a team so out of shape could, exactly 2 days later have the stamina to defeat the Soviets 4-1.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Shape

Those quotes are telling. I'm strongly thinking the "we were out of shape" is nothing more than an excuse.

Its difficult to believe that a team so out of shape could, exactly 2 days later have the stamina to defeat the Soviets 4-1.

Soviets edge in conditioning peaked in Game 1. They had the advantage of a pre 1972 Summit Series tournament - previously linked. By Game 8 the Soviets were done physically, especially by the third period. The only Soviet still skating was Alexander Yakushev.

The Soviet team was physically and mentally spent - losing battles for and to the puck even when they had the distance or positional advantage. The turnover leading to Paul Henderson's series winning goal was the result of physical and mental fatigue.No great play by Canada just a poor puckhandling choice by the Soviets with weak physical execution combined with extremely poor defensive zone coverage of the Canadian forwards.

 

[espo*]

I accuse you of being biased because it's clear you are if you accuse Canada of being the sole vilian in that series and not acknowledging the questionable at best tactics that the Soviets employed. Being from Croatia, it would seem your knowledge of this series is subpar, not a surprise..

(MOD)

As for our media, Don Cherry aside, our media is only too happy to gush over any European star(far too happy to do so in my books as I know the reverse is not true of our stars in Europe)

So, you post stuff like that and accuse others of being biased?
LOL

For what it's worth, living in a communist Yugoslavia, in a catholic Croatia, like most nations that wanted to be free of the whole communism yoke, we looked to the US for guidance and help...
Similarly, most of the people that I know always cheered for Canada vs USSR.

Only later (and after Joe Sakic retired), did I (and I assume most other Europeans) find the way the Canadian media treats their own and the rest (Don Cherry etc.) to be ridiculously biased.

 

[Sentinel]

I agreed with everything up to this point:

Sheer skill, ability and courage and tenacity to win, which the Soviets could not match.

You can accuse Soviets of anything but the lack of skill and ability. The courage argument is also questionable.

After that it's just Canadian fanboy arrogance.

 

[espo*]

I never questioned any lack of soviet skill, I was emphasizing the Canadian skill that was in play that allowed them to win.

As for courage or tenacity, while I agree the soviets had tenacity and courage, I think it was quite clear Canada "wanted it" just that much more,in the end.........it was the clear diiference

I doubt any fan would argue that, even a Soviet "fanboy"

I agreed with everything up to this point:



You can accuse Soviets of anything but the lack of skill and ability. The courage argument is also questionable.

After that it's just Canadian fanboy arrogance.

 

[Zine]

I never questioned any lack of soviet skill, I was emphasizing the Canadian skill that was in play that allowed them to win.

As for courage or tenacity, while I agree the soviets had tenacity and courage, I think it was quite clear Canada "wanted it" just that much more,in the end.........it was the clear diiference

I doubt any fan would argue that, even a Soviet "fanboy"

But if the Soviets couldn't match Canada in all these areas (sheer skill, ability and courage and tenacity to win) Canada should have won easily, however they could only achieve victory by the skin of their teeth.

 

[Zine]

Soviets edge in conditioning peaked in Game 1. They had the advantage of a pre 1972 Summit Series tournament - previously linked. By Game 8 the Soviets were done physically, especially by the third period. The only Soviet still skating was Alexander Yakushev.

The Soviet team was physically and mentally spent - losing battles for and to the puck even when they had the distance or positional advantage. The turnover leading to Paul Henderson's series winning goal was the result of physical and mental fatigue.No great play by Canada just a poor puckhandling choice by the Soviets with weak physical execution combined with extremely poor defensive zone coverage of the Canadian forwards.

This is nothing new. Soviets were physically worn as the series progressed; but that doesn't disprove that Canada was likely not in as poor shape as many believe.
I don't care how Canada adapted tactically, or how physical Canada played..its impossible to be "so out of shape from summer beer drinking" in game 1, then 2 days later magically have the physical stamina to defeat the Soviet machine 4-1.

 

[Filatov2Kovalev2Bonk]

No shame at all, none.

People are looking back after 40 years with the Soviet Union dissolved and no real hatred toward that land and perhaps not seeing how it wasn't just two teams playing each other.
Read one of Dryden's books on the topics, the Canadians thought their hotel rooms were bugged, the taciturn attitude of the hosts, lack of running water/black eggs...it was as if the Russians were conspiring against the Canadians.

This wasn't just our guys against their guys, it was a "war" of ideologies. We had to prove that our way worked, that passion and skill and yes, extremely dirty play, could overcome the almost robotic discipline of the Russian hosts. Of course Clarke axed Kharlamov, he was in one of the most intense, era-defining series of games of his career. If he hadn't done that who knows what would have happened? We might not have been talking about Henderson being a hero but rather Mihailov or Petrov showing us that the Soviet way was the proper way...and then a long period of introspection following, with a review of our hockey programs, the NHL looking inward as well.

Need to remember how we HATED the opponent here, the players sure felt it, look at the raw emotion of Esposito telling us how hard they tried for us. We're just so used to the watered-down, clean game...players used to axe swing refs and new players in exhibition games for crying out loud. What Clarke did was nothing special, it was just intensity and competition taking control of an elite player and bless his heart for doing it.

 

[overpass]

This is nothing new. Soviets were physically worn as the series progressed; but that doesn't disprove that Canada was likely not in as poor shape as many believe.
I don't care how Canada adapted tactically, or how physical Canada played..its impossible to be "so out of shape from summer beer drinking" in game 1, then 2 days later magically have the physical stamina to defeat the Soviet machine 4-1.

Canada made some specific adjustments before Game 2 to mitigate the conditioning gap. They dressed 6 defencemen, cut shift lengths in half, and had their forwards play more conservatively than they had in Game 1.

So you're right in that Canada's Game 1 performance wasn't only about being out of shape - it was also about subpar tactics and lineup composition. But the fact that Canada improved from Game 1 to Game 2 doesn't mean they were in top shape. It's very possible that they won Game 2 while in subpar physical condition. While the Soviets were better prepared, Canada had better hockey players man for man. They were bigger, stronger on the puck, and more skilled individually (although their team play wasn't at the level of the Soviets.)

 

[Zine]

Canada made some specific adjustments before Game 2 to mitigate the conditioning gap. They dressed 6 defencemen, cut shift lengths in half, and had their forwards play more conservatively than they had in Game 1.

So you're right in that Canada's Game 1 performance wasn't only about being out of shape - it was also about subpar tactics and lineup composition. But the fact that Canada improved from Game 1 to Game 2 doesn't mean they were in top shape. It's very possible that they won Game 2 while in subpar physical condition. While the Soviets were better prepared, Canada had better hockey players man for man. They were bigger, stronger on the puck, and more skilled individually (although their team play wasn't at the level of the Soviets.)

But if that were true, a Team Canada in top physical condition would be noticeably better than their Soviet counterparts.
Almost all these players would play each other in future series/tournaments (when Canadians were supposedly 'in shape') and the Canadian guys collectively still never looked like better players man-for-man.

 

[JackSlater]

But if that were true, a Team Canada in top physical condition would be noticeably better than their Soviet counterparts.
Almost all these players would play each other in future series/tournaments (when Canadians were supposedly 'in shape') and the Canadian guys collectively still never looked like better players man-for-man.

By the latter games of the series I find that the Canadians do seem noticeably better than the Soviets.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Very True

Canada made some specific adjustments before Game 2 to mitigate the conditioning gap. They dressed 6 defencemen, cut shift lengths in half, and had their forwards play more conservatively than they had in Game 1.

So you're right in that Canada's Game 1 performance wasn't only about being out of shape - it was also about subpar tactics and lineup composition. But the fact that Canada improved from Game 1 to Game 2 doesn't mean they were in top shape. It's very possible that they won Game 2 while in subpar physical condition. While the Soviets were better prepared, Canada had better hockey players man for man. They were bigger, stronger on the puck, and more skilled individually (although their team play wasn't at the level of the Soviets.)

The tactics you list, bolded, go back to the O6 era when teams would play 3 games in 4 night or 4 games in 5 nights (W / TH / SAT / SUN). Playing Sunday away against a rested team saw teams use these tactics to compete. Soviets, while in better shape, were not in short shift shape physically or mentally. They never made the necessary adjustments.

The Game 2 results showed this.

 

[overpass]

But if that were true, a Team Canada in top physical condition would be noticeably better than their Soviet counterparts.
Almost all these players would play each other in future series/tournaments (when Canadians were supposedly 'in shape') and the Canadian guys collectively still never looked like better players man-for-man.

I'm just going by what I see in the video of the 1972 games. In 1-on-1 situations, the Canadians usually come out ahead. Canada's defence corps was extremely strong 1 through 6 from Game 2 on and were rarely beaten 1 on 1. Phil Esposito and other Canadian forwards were able to consistently control the puck and win puck battles in the offensive zone against the Soviet defence.

The Soviet were far superior at team play. Spacing, timing, forwards and defence working together, etc. For which they deserve a great deal of credit. And of course they were skilled individuals as passers, shooters, etc. But I think if they had been pulled together at the last minute as Team Canada was, never having played together, they would have been a very different team.

Why did the Soviets match Canada for the rest of the 1970s in head to head play? I think they also learned lessons from 1972 and continued to improve. They may have even improved more than Canada did - at least I think they did. Canadian hockey development wasn't exactly organized very well in the 1970s, and the Soviet team and players looked a lot more advanced in, say, the 1981 Canada Cup.

 

[Killion]

They may have even improved more than Canada did - at least I think they did. Canadian hockey development wasn't exactly organized very well in the 1970s, and the Soviet team and players looked a lot more advanced in, say, the 1981 Canada Cup.

Discipline. Your a Russian hockey player of the era, being told you were being "sent down" had an entirely different meaning to a Canadian or American, Finn, Swede or whomever being told the same thing. In the Russians case, could be quite literal. "Sent down" to an underground hard rock coal mine in Siberia or outer Mongolia. Exchanging your Koho for a 25lb sledgehammer. Get to keep the helmet though. Need it where yer goin Comrade. No sunlight but for the once a month elevator ride to the surface and a hot bath. Outdoor tub. Rinsed & replenished from a giant wood fired cauldron after every 10 uses. In a blizzard. Minus 30 degree's..... conjugal visit once every 2 years..... savvy?

 

[Sentinel]

Discipline. Your a Russian hockey player of the era, being told you were being "sent down" had an entirely different meaning to a Canadian or American, Finn, Swede or whomever being told the same thing. In the Russians case, could be quite literal. "Sent down" to an underground hard rock coal mine in Siberia or outer Mongolia. Exchanging your Koho for a 25lb sledgehammer. Get to keep the helmet though. Need it where yer goin Comrade. No sunlight but for the once a month elevator ride to the surface and a hot bath. Outdoor tub. Rinsed & replenished from a giant wood fired cauldron after every 10 uses. In a blizzard. Minus 30 degree's..... conjugal visit once every 2 years..... savvy?

My advice would be "stay away from hard drugs."

 

[Killion]

My advice would be "stay away from hard drugs."

.... well, see, there ya go. Thats My Generation that was facing the Russians late 60's through the 70's. Lookit how messed up I am?

 

[espo*]

I have nothing to say then this.

We won, you lost.