1979 Challenge Cup - NHL All-Stars vs Soviet Union (3 game series)

Habsfan18

The Hockey Library
May 13, 2003
30,677
8,767
Ontario
ch19xxi.jpg


This series seems largely forgotten and under appreciated when discussing Soviets vs NHLers throughout history. The 3 game series took place from February 8th through the 11th in 1979 and replaced that years NHL All-Star game festivities.

The Soviets would defeat the NHL All-Stars 2 games to 1, including a 6-0 victory in game 3 in what was described as an embarrassing game for the NHL.

Were the Soviets simply superior at the time? Did the NHL underestimate the Soviets? What do you guys think of the rosters that were put together?

NHL All-Stars:

Gerry Cheevers
Ken Dryden
Tony Esposito

Barry Beck
Ron Greschner
Guy Lapointe
Robert Picard
Denis Potvin
Larry Robinson
Serge Savard
Borje Salming

Bill Barber
Mike Bossy
Bobby Clarke
Marcel Dionne
Bob Gainey
Clark Gillies
Anders Hedberg
Guy Lafleur
Don Marcotte
Lanny McDonald
Ulf Nilsson
Gilbert Perreault
Steve Shutt
Darryl Sittler
Bryan Trottier

Soviet Union:

Vladimir Myshkin
Vladislav Tretiak

Sergei Babinov
Zinetula Bilyaletdinov
Yuri Fedorov
Vasili Pervukhin
Sergei Starikov
Gennadiy Tsygankov
Valeri Vasiliev

Helmut Balderis
Irek Gimayev
Aleksandr Golikov
Vladimir Golikov
Sergei Kapustin
Valeri Kharlamov
Vladimir Kovin
Sergei Makarov
Boris Mikhailov
Vladimir Petrov
Aleksandr Skvortsov
Viktor Tyumenev
Mikhail Varnakov
Viktor Zhluktov

Game 1:



Game 2:



Game 3:

 
Last edited:

Batis

Registered User
Sep 17, 2014
1,093
1,030
Merida, Mexico
Here is an article written by Frank Orr a couple of days after the final game of the Challenge Cup. It gives some insight into how the series was viewed at the time.

Toronto Star (1971-2011); Feb 13 said:
If the defeat of the National Hockey League all-star team by the national side of the Soviet Union had been a one-goal loss or the result of some fluke, perhaps the gloom inflicted on the men involved in the operation of NHL teams would have been much more severe.
But the loss, a 6-0 drubbing in Sunday's third game here, was of such thoroughness, administered by a superb team that had everything - talented players, great ability in the game's basic skills, extraordinary discipline, flawless conditioning - that the NHL men who really care about their game seriously want to know what has gone wrong with it.
The NHL assembled a team of its best players and there really was some excellent athletes on the all-star club. But their deficit in the basic skills of the game - skating, making and taking a pass, especially - to the level the Soviets have in those areas was considerable.
Of course, some NHL men don't give a damn. They're only interested in profit and loss statements, important factors to be sure, because NHL teams are a business. If the fans are coming through the gate, the attitude of some owners and general managers is that it makes no difference if their team can't complete two consecutive passes of 10 feet.
The men who really care about the game though, went away from Manhattan not with their heads down, under assumed names, because their all-star team had been cleaned, but with their brains in gear to try to determine why Johnny can't play the game as well as Vladimir.
"I found it interesting that while the Soviets were showing us such a level of hockey skill, Buffalo Sabres added Dave Schultz in a trade," commented one NHL team official who, for obvious reasons, requested anonymity.
"The statements made by the Buffalo people showed such elation at getting Schultz, who's only skill is with his fists, because he'd give the team some backbone. Three years ago, the Sabres had as much pure hockey skill as any team in the league, which they showed by scoring 12 goals againts that good Russian team (Wings of the Soviet in a 1976 exhibition match). You wonder what in hell is going on in our league sometimes."
Maple Leafs were pleased when they added tough guys Dan Maloney and Dave Hutchison in the past year and no longer had to endure Errol Thompson and Inge Hammarström, two players with abundant pure skill but low penalty totals. Minnesota North Stars officials feel that the recent addition of Jack Carlson will help their drive for a playoff spot. Carlson and his brothers were the models for the three goons in the hockey movie Slapshot.
The Soviet Union hockey officials are ecstatic about a recent addition to their national team (forward) Sergei Makarov, 20. All Sergei can do is skate, pass, score and make plays. Reports are that he's a terrible fighter, but the U.S.S.R. people have overlooked that weakness in his game.
This is not intended as a finger-pointing session at some NHL teams that have added tough players. It merely is a suggestion that perhaps, just perhaps, the emphasis is in the wrong place. If some teams worked as hard at improving, say, the passing skill of their players, as they do in locating fighters, the league wouldn't its humiliation showing quite as prominently.
Harry Sinden of Boston Bruins and Cliff Fletcher of Atlanta Flames were members of the general managers' panel that was in charge of the all-star club. They're two of the brightest young executives in the game and they're concerned about where hockey is sitting these days in North America.
"What this series should do is bring recognition to Soviet hockey for what it's done - and that's to produce the world's best hockey players." Sinden said after Sunday's game.
"It should also drive home to us very emphatically that some changes are needed in our hockey, especially in the development of young players."
"There's a question I have to ask - and I don't have an answer for it. How come the Soviet players, who are absolutely superb skaters, all skate the same way with the same style? And how come our players all skate the same way and, as a group, not as well as the Soviets? I haven't got the answer but I'd certainly like to know."
"That great skating by the Soviets is a big reason why they appear to pass the puck so well. To pass that well you have to skate well. We lag behind them in both areas. The Soviets not only make a pass better than we do, but they take it much better, too, and skating skill is a big difference."
Fletcher's view is that the NHL must take a long, careful look at the entire system - from peewee to pro - which produces the talent to the league. Until the NHL expanded from six to 12 teams in 1967, the NHL's six clubs operated their own development system that had sponsored junior clubs plus the spreading of financial aid as far down as bantam (14 years) leagues.
The Canadian goverment at the time was quite strong in its view that the big league clubs' influence on amatuer hockey should be ended. The NHL withdrew its sponsorship and the universal amateur draft was established to divide the graduating crop of junior players.
Now Fletcher wonders if the NHL must take a look at regaining some influence in the pre-professional development of players.
"Since NHL sponsorship of junior teams ended, the skill level of the junior players the system has produced has decreased steadily, not a gigantic amount, but enough to be noticeable," Fletcher said.
"When an NHL team sponsored a junior club, it didn't have winning championships or making a profit on that junior team's operation as the No. 1 concern. The NHL clubs were willing to lose a sizeable amount on the sponsorship if the junior team produced some quality talent."
"Now the junior teams are all operated as an independent business and the men who own them are more interested in not losing money than they are in the skill level of the players they produce. The Canadian government might be forced to re-evaluate their view that the NHL excerted an evil influence on amateur hockey by a direct involvement, especially if they want the country to have a Team Canada which can compete with the Soviets."

The comments from Howie Meeker, Bobby Orr and Dick Irvin right after the game also had a similar feeling to them as the comments from Harry Sinden, Cliff Fletcher and Frank Orr in the article.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Habsfan18

Habsfan18

The Hockey Library
May 13, 2003
30,677
8,767
Ontario
Reading other articles after the completion of the series, the general consensus around the hockey world was that the NHL needed to completely rethink and revamp their style of play to get on the same level as the Soviets. It was viewed as a major wakeup call in NHL circles.
 

canuck2010

Registered User
Dec 21, 2010
2,700
844
15 or so players from one stacked club team playing a pick up all-star team in the middle of a season. Not really a true test.

It remains a fact that the Soviet Union, Russia whatever, has won 1 (one) best on best tournament in the history of hockey.

Mod Edit: Thread splitted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Batis

Registered User
Sep 17, 2014
1,093
1,030
Merida, Mexico
15 or so players from one stacked club team playing a pick up all-star team in the middle of a season. Not really a true test.

It remains a fact that the Soviet Union, Russia whatever, has won 1 (one) best on best tournament in the history of hockey.

1972 was their best shot based on the situation around the Canadian team and they still couldn't do it.

CSKA Moscow actually had 10 out of the 23 players on the Soviet roster during this series. As a comparison Montreal Canadiens had 7 players on the NHL All-Star team. Most North American experts at the time seems to have accepted that the Soviets beat them fair and square and considering that the series was hyped up as the series of the century it seems like rewriting history to say that it was not best on best when it clearly was treated as such at the time.
 

canuck2010

Registered User
Dec 21, 2010
2,700
844
CSKA Moscow actually had 10 out of the 23 players on the Soviet roster during this series. As a comparison Montreal Canadiens had 7 players on the NHL All-Star team. Most North American experts at the time seems to have accepted that the Soviets beat them fair and square and considering that the series was hyped up as the series of the century it seems like rewriting history to say that it was not best on best when it clearly was treated as such at the time.

Certainly they won. That is beyond dispute. That's not my point.
 

Namba 17

Registered User
May 9, 2011
1,669
548
15 or so players from one stacked club team playing a pick up all-star team in the middle of a season. Not really a true test.

It remains a fact that the Soviet Union, Russia whatever, has won 1 (one) best on best tournament in the history of hockey.
I got the logic.
When Soviets win in SS-79 Canada loses. So, Canada is not "the best", but "the worst". So, it's not "best on best" it's "best on worst". Soviets never won any best on best series.
 

canuck2010

Registered User
Dec 21, 2010
2,700
844
CSKA Moscow actually had 10 out of the 23 players on the Soviet roster during this series. As a comparison Montreal Canadiens had 7 players on the NHL All-Star team. Most North American experts at the time seems to have accepted that the Soviets beat them fair and square and considering that the series was hyped up as the series of the century it seems like rewriting history to say that it was not best on best when it clearly was treated as such at the time.

Exhibition hockey in the middle of an NHL season. Yes, it was hyped, to sell tickets and television. Not rewriting history at all, I'm sure more than a few players didn't want to be there.
 

canuck2010

Registered User
Dec 21, 2010
2,700
844
I also much prefer the 7 game series over a one-shot deal typical of a WC game. The best team doesn't always win in that type of format and it also leads to some strange standings at the end of things.
 

Habsfan18

The Hockey Library
May 13, 2003
30,677
8,767
Ontario
Exhibition hockey in the middle of an NHL season. Yes, it was hyped, to sell tickets and television. Not rewriting history at all, I'm sure more than a few players didn't want to be there.

I think you’re underestimating the amount of pride that was on the line with something such as the Challenge Cup. Sure, on the surface it was nothing more than a glorified exhibition tournament, but reading through many old articles it was MUCH more than that to the players involved. Both sides greatly wanted to prove that they were superior.
 

WildGopher

Registered User
Jun 13, 2012
1,072
159
Reading other articles after the completion of the series, the general consensus around the hockey world was that the NHL needed to completely rethink and revamp their style of play to get on the same level as the Soviets. It was viewed as a major wakeup call in NHL circles.

You're right, and that revamp started with Herb Brooks. He didn't wait for the NHL, but did his own analysis of what the Soviets were doing well, and how his Olympic youngsters in 1980 might be able to contain and compete with them. Brooks was also influenced by the offensive style of the Europeans on the 1970s Winnipeg Jets, who also influenced the Oilers' powerful offense of the '80s and others. Nothing like a shellacking to shake off the cobwebs and inspire innovation. And it worked: NHL teams who didn't adjust in the 1980s fell behind.
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,146
I think that Team NHL in 1979 was excellent on paper. 20 HHOFers, that's even more than 1976 Canada Cup team. I think the difference between the two teams was a couple of things. For starters there was no Orr or much preparation in 1979. The players would have been in good shape midseason but there would have been little time to practice and form a game plan. That line up was scary though and it should have been. Let's not fool ourselves, the Soviets beat a team stacked with great players.

They were missing a goalie in his prime to carry them (a la Vachon in 1976). Dryden retired 3 months later, while he was still considered the best goalie in the NHL then he was never good against the Russians. But what really hurt was the normally reliable Cheevers laying an egg in Game 3. I know Liut gets a lot of flack for the bombing in 1981 at the hands of the Soviets but I have always felt Cheevers looked worse. The goals he allowed were worse than Liut's. Both goalies kept their teams in the game after two periods but bombed in the 3rd.

I know that I still have the 1981 Canada Cup guide. I've read the articles and there was a big concern about how Canada would perform. Keeping in mind Canada won the first Canada Cup in 1976 and the Americans actually beat the Soviets in 1980, the main focus was on 1979 and just how lethal the Soviets could be. There was a lot of pessimism in those articles about Canada's chances. The defense really only had two seasoned vets in Potvin and Robinson. Even the goaltending, man, that was an unfortunate time to pick from practically all of the NHL. Dryden's gone, Roy isn't here yet neither is Fuhr. Smith got injured in training camp. That left Liut, who is better than most remember him but had just two NHL seasons under his belt. All of this concern stemmed from the fear of another repeat of 1979 and that is exactly what happened.
 

Sentinel

Registered User
May 26, 2009
12,847
4,686
New Jersey
www.vvinenglish.com
Overlooked is the fact that the NHL team was the result of fan voting. Hardly the ideal approach to building a team.
Do you also put an asterisk next to Canadian victories in 76, 84, and 91, due to the problems with Soviet lineups? USSR had WAY more problems with their lineup selections in those years than Canada did in 79 and 81.
 

Yakushev72

Registered User
Dec 27, 2010
4,550
372
Do you also put an asterisk next to Canadian victories in 76, 84, and 91, due to the problems with Soviet lineups? USSR had WAY more problems with their lineup selections in those years than Canada did in 79 and 81.

Kharlamov was unavailable in '76 because of injury, but it is doubtful that he would have been included because the Soviet Federation decided to experiment with young untested guys, and leave the core of the team at home. Petrov, Mikhailov, Yakushev, Shadrin, and most of the core of the national team remained at home, with just Vasiliev, Maltsev, and Lutchenko in the lineup among National team veterans. Guys like Balderis, Kapustin, Zhluktov, and Golikov were emerging talents included on the roster.

1991 occurred just a couple of months ahead of the collapse of the USSR, and many of the best players like Fetisov, Krutov, Makarov, Larionov and others were still in their prime, but not invited to play. In 1984, Fetisov, the best defenseman, and Nikolai Drozdetsky, the best goal scorer of the time, were not available because of injury, and some questionable roster choices probably weakened the team. It should be noted that Eagleson's decision to forever ban European referees from the playoff round of all Canada Cups after the Soviets beat Canada in the round robin with Dag Olsson as referee gave rise to the introduction of American referee Mike Noeth, which visibly cheapened the value of the competition. As Dan Kelly, the Canadian broadcaster said about Noeth during his broadcast of the 1987 round robin match between Canada and the Soviets (see youtube), "I'm cheering for Canada, but this is ridiculous!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sentinel

Habsfan18

The Hockey Library
May 13, 2003
30,677
8,767
Ontario
Dave Hodge - “You’ll see some of the best players in the world, two of them being Guy Lafleur and Helmut Balderis.”

Interesting that Balderis was mentioned specifically, rather than Kharlamov, Mikhailov, or Petrov.
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,146
Do you also put an asterisk next to Canadian victories in 76, 84, and 91, due to the problems with Soviet lineups? USSR had WAY more problems with their lineup selections in those years than Canada did in 79 and 81.

I don't know if the Challenge Cup is quite on the same level as the Canada Cup because while it was very important with a lot of pride on the line I think it falls a little short because of the fact that there was less preparation/practice for it and no other countries were involved. Granted, Canada and the Soviets were the best hockey countries, no doubt.

I think it is similar to Rendez Vous, but with different results. It gets remembered more because of the thrashing. But even as a Soviet is there more pride in 1981 than 1979? Because I think there should be. Canada had preparation, they had time, they had some questionable selections that ended up haunting them but I think a tournament with more preparation and the top 6 countries is better to win.

Granted, the 1979 Challenge Cup made a lot of people nervous about the Ruskies. The Miracle On Ice got that name because of what happened in 1979, I think. There was paranoia going into 1981 because of 1979, and our fears were confirmed. So yeah, 1979 had an impact there is no doubt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nnynetpotato

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,146
Do you also put an asterisk next to Canadian victories in 76, 84, and 91, due to the problems with Soviet lineups? USSR had WAY more problems with their lineup selections in those years than Canada did in 79 and 81.

Some years are better than others. I know Fetisov was hurt in 1984 but so was Denis Potvin. Canada also had a slew of players in 1987 that were missing, mostly defensemen (Robinson, Potvin, Lowe, Wilson, Stevens, MacInnis). 1991 where to begin? I realize the Russians were going through a transition then and shunned the old guard but Canada was missing: Lemieux, Bourque, Neely, Roy, Recchi and others that had a shot to make it such as Sakic, Francis, Oates, etc. We can go on all day about these things. At the end of the day the Canadian teams that I think had all or most of their talent on their roster includes:

1976, 1984, 2002, 2010, 2014, 2016.

The years they were missing some good talent due to injuries, bad selections or someone turning them down:

1981 (to an extent), 1987, 1991, 1996, 1998, 2006, 2016

At the end of the day a great team is a great team and they ought to figure out how to win without a key player or two, or three.
 

VMBM

And it didn't even bring me down
Sep 24, 2008
3,811
761
Helsinki, Finland
They were missing a goalie in his prime to carry them (a la Vachon in 1976). Dryden retired 3 months later, while he was still considered the best goalie in the NHL then he was never good against the Russians. But what really hurt was the normally reliable Cheevers laying an egg in Game 3. I know Liut gets a lot of flack for the bombing in 1981 at the hands of the Soviets but I have always felt Cheevers looked worse. The goals he allowed were worse than Liut's. Both goalies kept their teams in the game after two periods but bombed in the 3rd.

I think we've been through this a lot here in the past, but once again, you can't put much of the blame on Team NHL goalies. Tretiak was lousy especially in game 2, nearly costing the Soviets the win in a game they clearly dominated (e.g. shots on goal 31-16 for USSR), and thus Tikhonov put an inexprienced goalie like Myshkin in goal for game 3.
And if Vachon lets in 4 goals in one game vs Czechoslovakia (game 2 of the '76 final), how many would he (potentially) allow against the 1979 Soviets, a much better team - especially regarding firepower - than the '76 Czechs?

Also, the Soviets did not have Maltsev and young Fetisov (both injured and out for the rest of that season), and they lost Kharlamov in the 3rd period of game 1 and the 2-goal scorer, and brilliant penalty-killer in the series with his brother, Vladimir Golikov for game 3, so there was quite a bit of line-juggling regarding the 1st and 3rd line. In game 3, Mikhailov and Petrov played with Aleksandr Golikov on the top line, and Makarov played with Viktor Tyumenev and Irek Gimaev on the 3rd line, totally one-off combinations. Fortunately for USSR, they had such good depth around this time that it didn't matter much. However, I don't think it's quite necessary to list Team NHL's misfortunes, since USSR had plenty of them too.

Dave Hodge - “You’ll see some of the best players in the world, two of them being Guy Lafleur and Helmut Balderis.”

Interesting that Balderis was mentioned specifically, rather than Kharlamov, Mikhailov, or Petrov.

I think this was due to the 1978 and probably even 1977 World Championships, where Balderis was maybe the #1 star for the Soviets. The Canadian media obviously had followed the aforementioned tournaments much more closely than previously because of Canada's participation (with NHL professionals).

In their portrait of Sergei Kapustin for the 1979 Challenge Cup, they call the Kapustin-Zhluktov-Balderis line the Soviets' best, which I think they base on the 1978 World Championship, where the line arguably was just that. However, at the 1979 WHC, the Mikhailov-Petrov-Kharlamov line clearly outperformed Zhluktov's line, and domestically had done so every year, so I don't think the claim was ever quite true.



They also say that Kapustin is "generally rated as the fastest skater on the Soviet team", which might have been true (straight-line speed) at the time. I've always admired his skating, with those long, powerful strides.
 
Last edited:

Thenameless

Registered User
Apr 29, 2014
3,855
1,788
I remember this all too painfully. Then I had this East German neighbour who lived down the street, and I don't know why he defected from the Communist state (or how he got out), but he loved it. Said Canadians made too much money at hockey so "good for them". His attitude for a guy living in Canada made me sick to my stomach.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad