1974 Canada/Soviet Summit

[bucyk09]

Summit 1974 and NHL players!

During the summer of 1974 a lot of rumor about some NHL players Billy Harris wants to get for his lineup. I do some research in the old newspaper ( Toronto Star, Winipeg Free Press and The Brandon Sun ) and we read the name of Bobby Orr, Phil Esposito, Bobby Clarke, Bernie Parent, Henri Richard and Dave Keon as a possibility for Team Canada ' 74. I think some of this guys wants to play, certainly Bobby Orr but the pressure from NHLPA and Alan Eagleson and from the owner discourage them. For Billy Harris the center was the weakness of the team ( Lacroix, Backstrom, Walton, Bernier and Harrison ) but overall i thing they do a great job, Backstrom was simply fantastic, with Gordie and Mark Howe. Bernier was unlucky during the series, Tretyak made some incredible against him ( some croosbar and goal post too!! ) and his teammate Rejean Houle!! Lscroiz play great! Mike Walton was the bigest disapointement during the series, specialy in Moscow! In the last 39 games of the 1973-74 with Minnesota he got 41 goals, 29 assist for 70 points!!!! As Craig mentionned in his book when he was hot, he was hot!!! He won the scoring championship with this incredible second half of season.

 

[pappyline]

The Canadian referee Tom Brown seemed to make a lot of mistakes. Who was this guy & why was he reffing such an important series. We can understand the incompetence & favoratism of the Soviet refs but this tom brown guy seems almost as bad but who was he?

 

[bucyk09]

Tom Brown

The only thing i know about Tom Brown thas=n he was a amateur referee. I also see in old newspaper than he was choosen for the 1975 world championship. Maybe somebody know better about him????

 

[bucyk09]

Tom Brown

The only thing i know about Tom Brown than he was a amateur referee. I also see in old newspaper than he was choosen for the 1975 world championship. Maybe somebody know better about him????

 

[YMB29]

The Canadian referee Tom Brown seemed to make a lot of mistakes. Who was this guy & why was he reffing such an important series. We can understand the incompetence & favoratism of the Soviet refs but this tom brown guy seems almost as bad but who was he?

All you do is blame the referees in that series.
Did you see this:


I think this shows how Canadian commentators, fans, and players used the biased referee excuse in frustration.

 

[VMBM]

The Soviet loveboys-AMH, Reks, Zine have become very quiet all of a sudden

Don't pretend to know what the others think or do.

At least I have all the Summit series '74 games (minus g5) on DVD, and it has become obvious that you don't even really watch old games, so I suspect that all your information on the series is based on memories and on things that others say (and of course, you only accept the 'Canadian side of the story').

It is also interesting that the disallowed USSR goal (in the 2nd game) apparently means nothing here. The Soviets played a lousy game and IMO it would have been almost an undeserved victory had they won it, but THE GOAL would have made it 2-3 and at least might have sparked some life into them. And with that, MAYBE WHA's Canada would've had zero wins. Of course, a disallowed goal doesn't compensate another per se, but the Canadians weren't the only ones who suffered from bad reffing (and weren't the only ones in '72, either).

Anyone claiming that in the end of g7 it was clear (without watching any replays) that Canada scored before the game ended and that it was an easy decision for the ref to make, can go and jump in a river, for all I care. The disallowed Soviet goal in the 2nd game (in which the goal judge had the light on for good ten seconds, I think) might not have been an easy decision for the ref either, but hey, at least I'm admitting that!

 

[Zine]

The Soviet loveboys-AMH, Reks, Zine have become very quiet all of a sudden

The post you’re referring to is well written but not without Canadian bias. Much of it highlights what Canada didn’t do as opposed to what the Soviets DID do.

It’s obvious (based off that guy’s post) you’ve been reduced to playing the ‘only if’ game in order to prove your point. What if Canada doesn’t shoot wide a bunch of time in game 1? What if Howe isn’t injured in game 2? What if Tretiak doesn’t come up big in game 3, or Soviets don’t score 2 late goals? What if refereeing was better in game 6 or late goal was allowed in game 7? What if Canada used best line-up in game 8?........seriously, it just becomes comical after a while.
That Soviet team could use that exact same ‘what if’ reasoning to claim an 8-0 sweep was possible.

Bottom line, in an 8 game series WHA Canada won 1 game….that’s it, only 1. And you say USSR needed to cheat to win.

 

[Reks]

The Canadian referee Tom Brown seemed to make a lot of mistakes. who was he?

At least, he was better than Koharski!

 

[VMBM]

The post you’re referring to is well written but not without Canadian bias. Much of it highlights what Canada didn’t do as opposed to what the Soviets DID do.

It’s obvious (based off that guy’s post) you’ve been reduced to playing the ‘only if’ game in order to prove your point. What if Canada doesn’t shoot wide a bunch of time in game 1? What if Howe isn’t injured in game 2? What if Tretiak doesn’t come up big in game 3, or Soviets don’t score 2 late goals? What if refereeing was better in game 6 or late goal was allowed in game 7? What if Canada used best line-up in game 8?........seriously, it just becomes comical after a while.
That Soviet team could use that exact same ‘what if’ reasoning to claim an 8-0 sweep was possible.

Bottom line, in an 8 game series WHA Canada won 1 game….that’s it, only 1. And you say USSR needed to cheat to win.

Yeah, and don't forget those awful, awful mistakes coach Harris made before game 3 . Hell, as far as coaching is concerned, I would take Harris over Kulagin any time of the day, and tactically WHA's Team Canada displayed more versatility throughout the series... but of course, it never matters what problems the Soviets might have (that has become obvious here on many occasions!)

 

[Hockeynomad]

The key thing for this all-star team from the WHA was to afford this fledgling league some credibility.

This really was more of a WHA all-star team, the fact they adopted the Team Canada moniker was rather regrettable.

They had a core of true national team players, Hull, Stapleton, Tremblay, Cheevers, and some other over the hillers, good players put definitely past their prime; Mahovlich, Backstrom, Howe.

And some players that never deserved to wear a Team Canada sweater, Harrison, McCloud, Mckenzie, and more.

It comes down as a showcase for the WHA. There was some good games, but were no match for the Soviets.

Definitely not a summit matchup.

 

[cam0426]

I think I read that the same thing with the time clock happened in Canada in one of the first four games. But since it helped Canada that time it's of course OK.

Nothing like that happened in Canada. You may be thinking of referee Tom Brown disallowing a goal by Vladimir Petrov in Game 2.

Craig

 

[Crosbyfan]

The key thing for this all-star team from the WHA was to afford this fledgling league some credibility.

This really was more of a WHA all-star team, the fact they adopted the Team Canada moniker was rather regrettable.

They had a core of true national team players, Hull, Stapleton, Tremblay, Cheevers, and some other over the hillers, good players put definitely past their prime; Mahovlich, Backstrom, Howe.

And some players that never deserved to wear a Team Canada sweater, Harrison, McCloud, Mckenzie, and more.

It comes down as a showcase for the WHA. There was some good games, but were no match for the Soviets.

Definitely not a summit matchup.

After the 72 NHL team showed up out of shape and not allowing WHA players to play that obviously would have made the team, I think it was pretty reasonable for them to represent us.

They did a lot better than they were expected to at the start of the series. Of course the 72 team did a lot worse than expected but that is another story.

 

[VMBM]

The key thing for this all-star team from the WHA was to afford this fledgling league some credibility.

This really was more of a WHA all-star team, the fact they adopted the Team Canada moniker was rather regrettable.

They had a core of true national team players, Hull, Stapleton, Tremblay, Cheevers, and some other over the hillers, good players put definitely past their prime; Mahovlich, Backstrom, Howe.

And some players that never deserved to wear a Team Canada sweater, Harrison, McCloud, Mckenzie, and more.

It comes down as a showcase for the WHA. There was some good games, but were no match for the Soviets.

Definitely not a summit matchup.

If Backstrom ever played better, well, I'd love to see it! He was Canada's best skater in Moscow.

F. Mahovlich wasn't any better or worse than in '72. I think he just couldn't play (consistently) well vs. USSR for whatever reason.

I really wish they had played another Summit series in the late Seventies or early Eighties. There might be a lot less debating going on. Then again, something controversial would have almost certainly happened; it's just the way it was, when the hockey superpowers met. The only scandal-free confrontations between the two would be the 1981 and 1984* Canada Cup games, and the 1976 Canada Cup game, if one wants to count that in (I'm reluctant to).

* I've seen claims that biased reffing (a bit, yeah) DECIDED that, but IMO Canada was simply the better team on the ice. Quite a reversal from the round robin game.

 

[cam0426]

If Backstrom ever played better, well, I'd love to see it! He was Canada's best skater in Moscow.

F. Mahovlich wasn't any better or worse than in '72. I think he just couldn't play (consistently) well vs. USSR for whatever reason.

Good point about Mahovlich. It's funny he was terrible in 1972 and I could never figure out why Harry Sinden kept using him. His play was so bad it bordered on the absurd. Then in 1974 he looked great in camp and by all accounts was ready pumped to have a great series. He played well in Game 1 and nearly won the game for Canada in the final seconds. And then he reverted back to his form in 1972. He was invisable in Game 2, sat out Game 3, was erratic in Game 4 and played super in Finland and Sweden. After those game everyone following the series figured he was finally untracked. Well that wasn't the case at all. His play was beyond bad in Games 5 and 6. Billy Harris didn't even dress him for the all important Game 7 and then used him in the nothing Game 8.

Compare him to Andre Lacroix. Lacroix started off the series playing super and after the first 2 games had 1 goal and 4 assists. He played well in Games 3 and 4 and then tailed off big time in Moscow (one assist in the 4 games there.) But unlike Mahovlich Lacroix while not putting any points on the board still played very well defensivly in Moscow and he was the best face-off man in the series on either team. He stayed in the line-up due to his stellar defensive work. Mahovlich couldn't play well at either end of the ice.

Craig

 

[pappyline]

All you do is blame the referees in that series.
Did you see this:


I think this shows how Canadian commentators, fans, and players used the biased referee excuse in frustration.

That was the 8th game which was basically meaningless?

 

[pappyline]

Yeah, and don't forget those awful, awful mistakes coach Harris made before game 3 . Hell, as far as coaching is concerned, I would take Harris over Kulagin any time of the day, and tactically WHA's Team Canada displayed more versatility throughout the series... but of course, it never matters what problems the Soviets might have (that has become obvious here on many occasions!)

I like Billy Harris but he really didn't have a successful coaching career. And obviously screwing around with the lineup after game 2 was a blunder. That team just didn't have enough depth.

 

[Canadiens Fan]

All you do is blame the referees in that series.
Did you see this:


I think this shows how Canadian commentators, fans, and players used the biased referee excuse in frustration.

Fascinating clip, definitely not Don Chevrier's finest moment as a commentator, although referee Kompalla always seemed to be a little over his head in these games. I also thought that the clip showed the class of Ralph Backstrom who didn't take the bait from Johnny Esaw and offered no excuses for the game. I thought his last comment about the team's treatment in Moscow though, was telling.

It's funny, I bought the dvd set of this series when it came out. I just haven't gotten around to watching it. This thread has definitely made me try and set aside some time to watch the games again.

 

[VMBM]

Good point about Mahovlich. It's funny he was terrible in 1972 and I could never figure out why Harry Sinden kept using him. His play was so bad it bordered on the absurd. Then in 1974 he looked great in camp and by all accounts was ready pumped to have a great series. He played well in Game 1 and nearly won the game for Canada in the final seconds. And then he reverted back to his form in 1972. He was invisable in Game 2, sat out Game 3, was erratic in Game 4 and played super in Finland and Sweden. After those game everyone following the series figured he was finally untracked. Well that wasn't the case at all. His play was beyond bad in Games 5 and 6. Billy Harris didn't even dress him for the all important Game 7 and then used him in the nothing Game 8.

Both teams had those top players (in '72, '74...) who just couldn't adapt. On Canada's side, there were FRANK MAHOVLICH (obviously), Jean Ratelle, Rod Gilbert and KEN DRYDEN, to name a few. Why this was, I don't know. Maybe something to do with game tempo or simply to the big differences in the style(s) of play. Guys like Mahovlich and Ratelle just looked like they were constantly a few steps(strides?) behind (though maybe not in every game).

On the Soviets' side, I would name Alexander Maltsev and Vladimir Vikulov. Both were great technical players who never seemed to be at ease with physical play of the Canadians and didn't get to fully show their talent. Maltsev was very good in '74 but still did not quite play on the same level that he often did here in Europe (in the early '70s, he was the closest to being [Firsov's and] Kharlamov's equal, I think).

In the late Seventies and throughout the Eighties, this 'phenomenon' seemed to lessen considerably; i.e. I don't remember any top player being totally useless. The differences were not so big anymore and they had learned to play against one another (IMO USSR in particular).

BTW, both also had those players who seemed to play better than ever before and maybe since (Espo, Henderson, Backstrom, Yakushev, Tretiak...).

 

[cam0426]

I like Billy Harris but he really didn't have a successful coaching career. And obviously screwing around with the lineup after game 2 was a blunder. That team just didn't have enough depth.

I question if it was a blunder. As I commented earlier, Cheevers could not play in Game 3 as his father in law had a massive heart attack in the stands at MLG during Game 2. He had to remain with his family. Gordie Howe got hurt in Game 2 and didn't play after the first period of that game. So Harris had to replace them. What choice did he have here?

As for the other moves (removing Mahovlich, Ley and Selwood and replacing them with Jim Harrison, Tom Webster and Marty Howe) he did promise everyone on that team they'd get into at least one game against the Soviets. Both Brad Selwood and Rick Smith told me that Harris was a true gentleman and a man of his word. He was not going to break that promise (unlike Harry Sinden 2 years earlier) regardless of the circumstances.

So was it a blunder? Only if you argue replacing injured players and living up to your word is a blunder.

Craig

 

[pappyline]

I question if it was a blunder. As I commented earlier, Cheevers could not play in Game 3 as his father in law had a massive heart attack in the stands at MLG during Game 2. He had to remain with his family. Gordie Howe got hurt in Game 2 and didn't play after the first period of that game. So Harris had to replace them. What choice did he have here?

As for the other moves (removing Mahovlich, Ley and Selwood and replacing them with Jim Harrison, Tom Webster and Marty Howe) he did promise everyone on that team they'd get into at least one game against the Soviets. Both Brad Selwood and Rick Smith told me that Harris was a true gentleman and a man of his word. He was not going to break that promise (unlike Harry Sinden 2 years earlier) regardless of the circumstances.

So was it a blunder? Only if you argue replacing injured players and living up to your word is a blunder.

Craig

Good point. I met Harris once and he was a gentleman.

 

[Hockeynomad]

Frank Mahovlich got really worked up in the 1972 series, and that reduced his affectiveness.

Just to give you a background on Frank, he had how to describe, a fragile psyche.
Not the best way to deal with the very competitve world of pro hockey. I know that Punch Imlach was very tough on Frank during his time with the Maple Leafs and that led to 2 "nervous breakdowns". Punch eventually had one of his own.

Anyway, Frank being of Croatian heritage, was exposed to stories by his father to the "communist menace" in the former Yugloslavia and the 1972 series really had strong political overtones mixed in.

If you saw the CBC mini-series about 72 series, Frank would say that just about anyone from the Soviet delegation was KGB and maybe he was correct.

In Moscow he was paranoid about anything and warned the players that the Soviets may have injected some "energy-sapping" drug in their soup.

So Frank was really into it.

Just to point out again to AMD about the disallowed Soviet goal in Game 2; I remember watching the replay and only after extreme slow motion, it was apparent that there was a goal.

 

[cam0426]

Both teams had those top players (in '72, '74...) who just couldn't adapt. On Canada's side, there were FRANK MAHOVLICH (obviously), Jean Ratelle, Rod Gilbert and KEN DRYDEN, to name a few. Why this was, I don't know. Maybe something to do with game tempo or simply to the big differences in the style(s) of play. Guys like Mahovlich and Ratelle just looked like they were constantly a few steps(strides?) behind (though maybe not in every game).

I'd agree with you regarding Dryden and Mahovlich when you describe their success (or lack there of) against the Soviets. Not so sure about Ratelle and Gilbert. In particular with Rod Gilbert I never saw him play more physical or better defensively then in those last 4 Moscow games. He didn't get a lot of points (1 goal and 3 assists) but he did average a point a game in Moscow and was a very effective 2 way player. It's funny when Team Canada got home he was interviewed by a French language newspaper in Montreal and the reporter asked him why he was so much more physical in Moscow than in the NHL. Gilbert smiled and said something like the series against the Soviets was far more intense and important than any game he had played in in the NHL. So his style adjusted to that.

As for Ratelle he was way off his 1971-72 form but he did pick up 2 points in the final game and I thought in Games 6-8 he played a very solid 2 way game.

Craig

 

[seventieslord]

I went to the site to get the book. I assumed it was Canadian and liked the price. However, the site you went through (lulu) has crazy shipping prices. I decided to go ahead anyway, and then I found out it was american prices! By that point I had already bought the book in my mind and thought "If people like me don't support aspiring hockey historians, who will?" - so I got it anyway.

I know you can download it for $10 too, but it's too bad there's no way to get the physical book to people cheaper. I imagine this is a common thing you run into when self-publishing. It's too bad because instead of having the audience comprised of those who are interested, you have only those who are interested AND want to pay that much money.

I did buy an independently published book a couple of months ago from another member of SIHR and it was the best book I've read in a while. Looking forward to this one too.

 

[cam0426]

I went to the site to get the book. I assumed it was Canadian and liked the price. However, the site you went through (lulu) has crazy shipping prices. I decided to go ahead anyway, and then I found out it was american prices! By that point I had already bought the book in my mind and thought "If people like me don't support aspiring hockey historians, who will?" - so I got it anyway.

I know you can download it for $10 too, but it's too bad there's no way to get the physical book to people cheaper. I imagine this is a common thing you run into when self-publishing. It's too bad because instead of having the audience comprised of those who are interested, you have only those who are interested AND want to pay that much money.

I did buy an independently published book a couple of months ago from another member of SIHR and it was the best book I've read in a while. Looking forward to this one too.

I really do appreciate you buying the book and I have expressed my concern to Lulu over the high cost of shipping. I had to order some books for myself (to give to friends and my daughters' school library) and the shipping costs were pretty steep.

Thank you again for buying it and I really hope you enjoy the book.

Craig

 

[VMBM]

I'd agree with you regarding Dryden and Mahovlich when you describe their success (or lack there of) against the Soviets. Not so sure about Ratelle and Gilbert. In particular with Rod Gilbert I never saw him play more physical or better defensively then in those last 4 Moscow games. He didn't get a lot of points (1 goal and 3 assists) but he did average a point a game in Moscow and was a very effective 2 way player. It's funny when Team Canada got home he was interviewed by a French language newspaper in Montreal and the reporter asked him why he was so much more physical in Moscow than in the NHL. Gilbert smiled and said something like the series against the Soviets was far more intense and important than any game he had played in in the NHL. So his style adjusted to that.

As for Ratelle he was way off his 1971-72 form but he did pick up 2 points in the final game and I thought in Games 6-8 he played a very solid 2 way game.

Craig

Okay. I don't remember neither Ratelle nor Gilbert doing anything great, but I guess they weren't the sort of players who made you go "WOW!" anyway. Obviously you have paid more attention to Canadian players than me. Well, a Rod Gilbert fistfight must have been something of a novelty .