1972 Summit Series: shame or glory?

[Iain Fyffe]

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'll go ahead and argue that, thereby proving you wrong. "Wanting it more" has to be the most overused platitude there is in hockey. It's purely ex post facto, only used to later explain things that happened.

We won, you lost.

In this sentence, who is "we" and who is "you"?

 

[Sorge Georos]

"Wanting it more" is another lazy narrative that people feel the need to use because being outplayed isn't a profound enough explanation.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Wanting It More

"Wanting it more" is a euphamism for playing hard until the very end regardless of the score.

Tortoise and the hare type analogies are plentiful in hockey - Game 2, 1971 Canadiens / Bruins playoff, Miracle on Manchester, 1972 Summit Series Game 8, etc

Watch the last minute of Game 8 of the 1972 Summit Series and you the Soviets getting lazy - two defensemen in the right defensive corner, one forgets to cover for the other. Forwards leave Henderson alone in front of the net. Experienced Canadian players do not let-up and take advantage, converting a tie into a victory.

 

[Sentinel]

"Wanting it more" is a euphamism for playing hard until the very end regardless of the score.

This is getting ridiculous. Even if the team is badly outplayed and ends up losing, like, I dunno, 1-8, yet it "plays hard until the end," they still "want it more"? Does "wanting it more" involve deliberately injuring other team's star players?

Tortoise and the hare type analogies are plentiful in hockey ... 1972 Summit Series Game 8, etc

I'm sorry: who was the tortoise and who was the hare here? Surely you're not calling Team Canada, who everybody expected to steamroll over the Soviets and win all eight games "tortoise," are you?

 

[Zine]

This is getting ridiculous. Even if the team is badly outplayed and ends up losing, like, I dunno, 1-8, yet it "plays hard until the end," they still "want it more"? Does "wanting it more" involve deliberately injuring other team's star players?


I'm sorry: who was the tortoise and who was the hare here? Surely you're not calling Team Canada, who everybody expected to steamroll over the Soviets and win all eight games "tortoise," are you?

Depending on who's making the argument, Team Canada was either the "more skilled team", or the team who "wanted it more".

At the end of the day, a series that close is decided by the bounce of the puck. Yes, Canada won....but in no way shape or form were they significantly better than the Soviets.

 

[Theokritos]

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.

Team Canada wasn't pulled together at the last minute, they trained together for two and a half weeks. Yes, the Soviets had a preparation advantage, but "pulled together at the last minute" is an overstatement.

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.

Good point. No-one is arguing that the Canadians were in top shape anyway, I'm sure they would have been in better condition in the middle of the season. What bothers me personally is that Team Canada is painted as having had a joke of a training camp. Inferior to the Soviets? Sure. Inferior to the NHL? I doubt it.

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

Seriously? Dissidents were sent to Siberia, but hockey players? You must confuse the Soviet Union with North Korea...

"Wanting it more" is a euphamism for playing hard until the very end regardless of the score.

Very good point. The euphemism has become a phrase often used to cover up the lack of a real explanation for a defeat and that's why I think Iain Fyffe's aversion against it has merit. That said, in the case of 1972 even the Soviets have stated they were impressed with how the Canadians didn't give up and how they went all-out until the final buzzer.

We won, you lost.

People in this thread questioning the value of the Canadian victory are from Canada, the United States, Finland, other European nations... but for you it's still "us versus them (=Soviets)". Speaks volumes about your mindset and why it's so difficult for some people to deal with critical questions.

 

[VMBM]

People in this thread questioning the value of the Canadian victory are from Canada, the United States, Finland, other European nations... but for you it's still "us versus them (=Soviets)". Speaks volumes about your mindset and why it's so difficult for some people to deal with critical questions.

Abso-bloody-exactly.

And for some people, it really seems difficult to understand that just because you support, or used to support, the Soviets IN HOCKEY*, you are not necessarily a 'comrade' or even 'ex-comrade' (not that there would be any shame in that per se).

* all in all, a very small and insignificant (certainly politically) sport in the world of sports

 

[Canadiens1958]

Tortoise and Hare

This is getting ridiculous. Even if the team is badly outplayed and ends up losing, like, I dunno, 1-8, yet it "plays hard until the end," they still "want it more"? Does "wanting it more" involve deliberately injuring other team's star players?


I'm sorry: who was the tortoise and who was the hare here? Surely you're not calling Team Canada, who everybody expected to steamroll over the Soviets and win all eight games "tortoise," are you?

Every player and every team has the capacity to be the tortoise or the hare. The variance of team sport. Changes from shift to shift, period to period, game to game, series to series, season to season, etc.

This is why you see results that seem unexpected or are unexplainable to those in the media who project or predict.

Mastering this characteristic is the unrealistic objective for athletes.

 

[overpass]

Seriously? Dissidents were sent to Siberia, but hockey players? You must confuse the Soviet Union with North Korea...

With 20 million people passing through the gulag over the years, it seems anyone could be a dissident.

Communist Czechoslovakia imprisoned most of their hockey team in 1950.

 

[Sentinel]

Canadiens1958: I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Your post doesn't have anything to do with the fairy tale in question.

 

[Canadiens1958]

1964 Toronto Maple Leafs

Canadiens1958: I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Your post doesn't have anything to do with the fairy tale in question.

1964 Toronto Maple Leafs won the Stanley Cup.

Look at their results for the games of January 18, 19 and 22nd 1964 to see how a players and a team may alternate between tortoise and hare personae during a season but at the end brings everything together to win:

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/hspgames.cgi

 

[Iain Fyffe]

This is why you see results that seem unexpected or are unexplainable to those in the media who project or predict.

And this is why it's essentially useless. It's only ever trotted out when there is something that someone wants to explain, but can't otherwise explain. It's a god-of-the-gaps arguments; I don't know why they won, therefroe they must have wanted it more.

But of course, most of those in the media predicted Team Canada would dominate the Summit Series. So I suppose by the usual logic this means the Soviets actually wanted it more, because they were the ones who surprised the prognosticators. Team Canada did much worse than most predicted they would, which means they must not have wanted it very much.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

1964 Toronto Maple Leafs won the Stanley Cup.

Look at their results for the games of January 18, 19 and 22nd 1964 to see how a players and a team may alternate between tortoise and hare personae during a season but at the end brings everything together to win:

You don't need a god-of-the-gaps argument to explain the results of three hockey games. There is so much variance in performance in hockey that you need far more than three games to know how a team should be expected to perform.

Anything can happen in only three games. Drawing any conclusions from there is dangerous at best.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

At the end of the day, a series that close is decided by the bounce of the puck. Yes, Canada won....but in no way shape or form were they significantly better than the Soviets.

Indeed. Even with two exactly evenly-matched teams, not every game will end in a tie. Not every eight-game series will go 4-4.

To say the Canadians won because they had heart and just wanted it more suggests some sort of destiny, that their ultimate win was unavoidable. The last four games of the series were decided by a single goal each. Just once bounce could have turned a 4-3-1 Canadian series win to a 3-3-2 draw. Two bounces and the Soviets could have won. It was just that close.

 

[overpass]

And this is why it's essentially useless. It's only ever trotted out when there is something that someone wants to explain, but can't otherwise explain. It's a god-of-the-gaps arguments; I don't know why they won, therefroe they must have wanted it more.

But of course, most of those in the media predicted Team Canada would dominate the Summit Series. So I suppose by the usual logic this means the Soviets actually wanted it more, because they were the ones who surprised the prognosticators. Team Canada did much worse than most predicted they would, which means they must not have wanted it very much.

Many of the participants in the Summit Series have said that the Canadians wanted it more. Some on the Soviet side said that the Canadian will to win was something that impressed them. Is that a media creation?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Sustaining Discipline

And this is why it's essentially useless. It's only ever trotted out when there is something that someone wants to explain, but can't otherwise explain. It's a god-of-the-gaps arguments; I don't know why they won, therefroe they must have wanted it more.

But of course, most of those in the media predicted Team Canada would dominate the Summit Series. So I suppose by the usual logic this means the Soviets actually wanted it more, because they were the ones who surprised the prognosticators. Team Canada did much worse than most predicted they would, which means they must not have wanted it very much.

Second bolded is why athletes do not pay attention to the media, prognosticators, etc. The athletes concentrate on playing the game as strategized.

First bolded is simply the confirmation that the authors of such quotes do not have access to a team's strategy,game plan, or inside information about health or injuries.

Be it "Wanting it More", Tortoise and Hare or other quotes, it still comes down to the mental willingness and physical readiness to sustain discipline within the team strategy - knowledge that the various pundits are never privy to.

 

[Theokritos]

With 20 million people passing through the gulag over the years, it seems anyone could be a dissident.

A lot of people where dissidents in the eyes of the regime... now please show me cases where Soviet hockey players were sent to Siberia.

Communist Czechoslovakia imprisoned most of their hockey team in 1950.

1) Many of the members of this team were against the regime, therefore they were dissidents.
2) We're not talking about Czechoslovakia. So again: How many cases do you know where Soviet hockey players ended up in Siberia? I'm eager to learn something new.

 

[overpass]

A lot of people where dissidents in the eyes of the regime... now please show me cases where Soviet hockey players were sent to Siberia.



1) Many of the members of this team were against the regime, therefore they were dissidents.
2) We're not talking about Czechoslovakia. So again: How many cases do you know where Soviet hockey players ended up in Siberia? I'm eager to learn something new.

Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union were not independent, unrelated cases. Czechoslovakia operated under the system of government imposed by the Soviet Union.

And it is not necessary for Soviet hockey players to have actually been sent to Siberia for Soviet hockey players to have been living with the possibility of being sent to Siberia.

 

[Zine]

Second bolded is why athletes do not pay attention to the media, prognosticators, etc. The athletes concentrate on playing the game as strategized.

First bolded is simply the confirmation that the authors of such quotes do not have access to a team's strategy,game plan, or inside information about health or injuries.

Be it "Wanting it More", Tortoise and Hare or other quotes, it still comes down to the mental willingness and physical readiness to sustain discipline within the team strategy - knowledge that the various pundits are never privy to.

You are defining "knowing how to win" and/or "what it takes to win". You are not defining "heart" or "will to win". You have the right stick, but the wrong end.

 

[Zine]

Many of the participants in the Summit Series have said that the Canadians wanted it more. Some on the Soviet side said that the Canadian will to win was something that impressed them. Is that a media creation?

You'll find Soviet players using the term "heart".....but find me one who says "That Canadian player wanted to win more than I did, when the going got tough I let up during the Summit Series." You won't.
Again, "heart" is a god-of-the-gaps argument to explain why the series turned out the way it did...even for players.

 

[Theokritos]

Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union were not independent, unrelated cases. Czechoslovakia operated under the system of government imposed by the Soviet Union.

Let's leave aside the fact that the crackdown on the national team appeared in the earlier stage of Communist reign in Czechoslovakia when there was still resistance to be expected within the population and let's also leave aside the fact that the crackdown falls into the era of Stalin and let us instead focus on the most crucial fact: the Czechoslovak players were arrested because they voiced opposition against the Communist Regime, not because of a disappointing training camp or disappointing tournament. They were arrested as dissidents.

And it is not necessary for Soviet hockey players to have actually been sent to Siberia for Soviet hockey players to have been living with the possibility of being sent to Siberia.

In other words, there is no evidence whatsoever and the whole notion exist only in the fantasy of a few forum members here. I rest my case.

 

[Zine]

Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union were not independent, unrelated cases. Czechoslovakia operated under the system of government imposed by the Soviet Union.

And it is not necessary for Soviet hockey players to have actually been sent to Siberia for Soviet hockey players to have been living with the possibility of being sent to Siberia.

Virtually the whole 'sent to Siberia' Gulags ended in the late 1950s. Regardless, no hockey player was going to be sent to a Siberian work camp.

 

[Canadiens1958]

1950 Sverdlovsk Air Disaster

Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union were not independent, unrelated cases. Czechoslovakia operated under the system of government imposed by the Soviet Union.

And it is not necessary for Soviet hockey players to have actually been sent to Siberia for Soviet hockey players to have been living with the possibility of being sent to Siberia.

The 1950 Sverdlovsk Air Disaster where virtually the complete Soviet Team died and the spin put on the event within the Soviet
Union is very revealing:

http://www.hockeyhistory.org/2011/08/soviet-union-national-hockey-team-1950.html

 

[Laphroaig]

Getting back on topic. Shame for sure. Please don't use the context of the cold war to justify what Clarke did. Cheating is cheating.The orgy of self-congratulation going on right now in Canada for the 40th anniversary of the series sickens me. I'm very proud of the success Canada has had in best on best hockey competitions but the Summit series....not so much.

I'm equally sickened when elements of society celebrate other cheaters like Lance Armstrong, Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Ryan Braun etc.

 

[Killion]

Indeed.Two bounces and the Soviets could have won. It was just that close.

... absolutely. It was "just that close". This term in explaining a win post event as "they wanted it more" I dont think is altogether accurate. I've always followed the philosophy that a games momentum starts from the crease out as opposed to the forward rush. The teams confidence in the Goaltender, who should be a natural leader, in many ways driving the play.

So rather than thinking "Team Canada won because they wanted it more" I look it as more a case of "Team Canada won because they were afraid to lose". Hence you got these mercenary free-lance charges by guys like Henderson. Desperate play & attack. Force of will. Tretiak was "in their heads", he fought like it was life & death in stopping that puck from crossing the red line as any Goalie worth his salt would. It took a guy like Henderson playing out of his normal range & out of his mind to score those goals.

Yes there were breakdowns by Russians in their zone, but only by slivers, no gaping massive holes. Semantics perhaps but there is a difference between "wanting it more" as opposed to "being afraid to lose". Its a headspace. Never say die. And because the Canadian game was one of more individual as opposed to team play, Paul Henderson won that series for Canada by being a complete & utter opportunist who seized the moment, playing sacrificially, something that has been drummed into Canadian & American bred players for generations. Remember too that Henderson came up through the Leaf system, whereby this whole "We Are Marshall" philosophy instilled by Conn Smythe & not yet completely shredded by Harold Ballard was still being fostered, inculcated in each player, expected.