AAA 2010 Line-Up Assassinations

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,982
Brooklyn
Here is my lineup, complete with links to completed bios, the rest of which I am working hard on.

I wouldn't mind getting a couple of reviews; however, it wouldn't hurt my feelings if no one took the time, because I probably won't. Apathetic? No, not at all. But this period of the draft is always much, much too short for my liking, and in this very limited period of time, I'm much more interested in the long-term effects of learning about my players and in turn teaching you all about them, than I am in the short-term effects of hearing what you all think about a lineup that isn't fully bio'd yet, and me doing the same for some of you.

Regina Pat Canadians


Martin Havlat - Jason Allison - Scott Mellanby (A)
Murray Craven - Bill Carson - Alexander Golikov
Dave Tippett - Peter Zezel - Mike Murphy (C)
Dutch Hiller - Pete Stemkowski - Howie Meeker

Jack Ruttan (A) - Randy Manery
Bob Plager - Evgeni Paladiev
Bill Juzda - Vladimir Malakhov

Jiří Králík
Felix Potvin

Coach: Terry Crisp
Associate Coach: John Muckler

Spares: Gary Sargent, D, John Mayasich, C/D


PP1: Havlat-Anderson-Mellanby-Ruttan-Malakhov
PP2: Craven-Carson-Golikov-Manery-Malakhov
PK1: Zezel-Tippett-Manery-Ruttan
PK2: Craven-Murphy-Paladiev-Juzda

Since you have nice bios for most of your guys:

Allison has the best offensive peak of any post-expansion NHL player in this draft, and it isn't close. I haven't really compared him to pre-expansion guys, but my guess is that that isn't close either. Only Jiri Lala (thanks, Dreak :yo:) has a case to have a better offensive peak than Allison. When I saw you put Mellanby on the first line with him, I thought it was another Chris Drury on the top line situation (dominant center with wingers who can't keep up), but I don't think it's the case. Mellanby is actually better offensively than most of the top line glue guys in this, and he was actually a good scoring line player with Florida for a few years. And he's loaded with intangibles. Havlat is talented but brittle - who replaces him on the top line if he's injured? My other concern with Havlat is that speed is his biggest strength, while his much slower linemates rely much more on puck possession to get their points.

Whenever I was trying to find a playmaking winger for Bullard, I kept coming across the name "Murray Craven" as one of the best available. Too bad we had already taken 2 scoring line LWs! Really solid player and decent defensive credentials too. Carson seems like a good enough 2nd line center, nothing special. Golikov provides some goal scoring.

Good checking line. Tippett and Zezel as excellent 3rd line defensive specialists. Murphy is a solid captain and provides a little bit of offense in the counter attack.

Hiller was fast and tough and Sternowski seems like a prototypical 4th liner.

Ruttan is obviously a good player as the only HHOFer available in this draft! But how did he play? Was he known for offense or defense? You have him on both your top PP and PK, and I would just feel more comfortable if I knew what type of player he was, rather than just "good enough to be a HHOFer."

Manery seems solid all-round, more leaning towards offense, but decent defensively too.

Plager seems like an excellent defensive specialist, tough guy, and PKer. Why isn't he on your PK? Paladiev seems solid, but unspectacular all round.

Juzda is a big hard hitter - great #5. Malakhov is a good offensive defenseman who refused to use his size. Good PP guy, but good enough to play the whole PP?

Kralik is interesting to me. He's no worse than a very solid AAA starter, and might be much better than that. I haven't decided yet.

Very good coaching. Crisp is probably a bit behind Martin, but not much. And Muckler was one of the few coaches available who actually brings something as an assistant.

I assume Allison is centering your first PP and not some guy named Anderson.

Overall PP forwards are great (especially the first unit, assuming Havlat is healthy). Still not sure if Ruttan brought a lot of offense and not sure if Malakhov was good enough to play the whole PP.

Very good PKing forwards, though I have to wonder why Manery is there over Plager on D.
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,210
7,369
Regina, SK
Lindmark is a very good goalie at this level; likely one of the better ones. I would love to see a more detailed comparison with Kralik - too bad you and 70s are in different divisions. Beaupre is an ok backup - nothing special.

Elementary comparisons to start with:

- Kralik's Golden Hockey Stick Record of 1st, 5th, 7th is better than Lindmark's 3rd, 5th, 7th. Lindmark's 7th place is based on 4 votes, so not too reliable.

- Kralik is a two-time World Championship top goalie (1982, 1985) - So is Lindmark (1981, 1986), plus a 2nd team (which was rarely named) in 1987.

- In best-on-best tournaments, Kralik didn't really play, while Lindmark has 16 games of experience in three tournaments (7-9)

- In other tournaments, Lindmark won 2 gold, 2 silver, and a bronze for a total of 5 medals in 7 tournaments. Kralik won 1 gold, 3 silver, medalling in all 4 tournaments.

- Lindmark was seemingly his country's only option in net internationally for a decade. Kralik was almost like a stopgap between the primes of Holecek and Hasek. But knowing what we know about the countries and their competitiveness over the years, what is more impressive - Sweden's only option, or a Czech stopgap?

- Both actually had long storied careers of relegation and promotion. Lindmark had 12 seasons in Sweden's Division 1, and 11 in Division 2. Kralik had 13 Division 1 seasons and 5 Division 2 seas ons, plus you could count his two final years in Germany as Division 2. 13 Division 1 seasons in 1969-1985 Czechoslovakia, or 12 in Sweden from 1982-1997? Take your pick.

- Domestic recognition: From what I can see, Lindmark was the Swedish league's top goalie in 1985, 1986, and 1987. He was also the league's top player in 1987. Based on hockeyarchives, it doesn't look like there is any record of voting for the top player award, or 2nd team all-stars, so we don't get as much depth out of this. Kralik had three seasons where he was recognized by at least one source as the top Czech goalie. He was also named the league's top player once, as well as 2nd, 4th, 4th, 5th. It is possible that Lindmark had a 2nd and 3rd-place MVP finish in his other two years as top goalie, but we'll likely never know for sure.

- Domestic Championships: Lindmark won the Swedish league in 1986, 1988, 1992, and 1994, shwoing a clear inability to dominate in even-numberd years, which makes him a pretty odd goalie if you ask me. Kralik won the championship twice in the Czech league, and in years that were still fairly competitive. It's a toss-up which of these is more impressive.

Overall, it's very close. I'm biased, but I take Kralik. Main thing in his favour is the superior golden hockey stick voting record. Main thing in Lindmark's favour is more best-on-best experience. Secondary thing in Kralik's favour is a more extensive record of being among his league's top 5 players. All other factors are extremely close
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,210
7,369
Regina, SK
Since you have nice bios for most of your guys:

Allison has the best offensive peak of any post-expansion NHL player in this draft, and it isn't close. I haven't really compared him to pre-expansion guys, but my guess is that that isn't close either. Only Jiri Lala (thanks, Dreak :yo:) has a case to have a better offensive peak than Allison. When I saw you put Mellanby on the first line with him, I thought it was another Chris Drury on the top line situation (dominant center with wingers who can't keep up), but I don't think it's the case. Mellanby is actually better offensively than most of the top line glue guys in this, and he was actually a good scoring line player with Florida for a few years. And he's loaded with intangibles. Havlat is talented but brittle - who replaces him on the top line if he's injured? My other concern with Havlat is that speed is his biggest strength, while his much slower linemates rely much more on puck possession to get their points.

Could be a concern, but probably not. Faster guys thrive with slower guys on a regular basis.

Whenever I was trying to find a playmaking winger for Bullard, I kept coming across the name "Murray Craven" as one of the best available. Too bad we had already taken 2 scoring line LWs! Really solid player and decent defensive credentials too. Carson seems like a good enough 2nd line center, nothing special. Golikov provides some goal scoring.

Yeah, I was actually surprised it got to the point where I considered a modern player like Murray Craven shone through as the best option; I'm not typically into guys who had some good offensive years in the 80s, but playmaking LWs are not easy to get.

Good checking line. Tippett and Zezel as excellent 3rd line defensive specialists. Murphy is a solid captain and provides a little bit of offense in the counter attack.

Hiller was fast and tough and Sternowski seems like a prototypical 4th liner.

Stemkowski :thumbu:

Ruttan is obviously a good player as the only HHOFer available in this draft! But how did he play? Was he known for offense or defense? You have him on both your top PP and PK, and I would just feel more comfortable if I knew what type of player he was, rather than just "good enough to be a HHOFer."

that's kinda why he's there. I've looked, and info on his play just isn't there. the best I can say is that he appears to have been, in the sparsely filled in Manitoba senior league stats, the highest scoring blueliner in his league.

I'd be open to leaving him on the PP and taking him off the PK to prevent uncertainty, as I have plenty of options there.

Plager seems like an excellent defensive specialist, tough guy, and PKer. Why isn't he on your PK?

Problem solved?

Juzda is a big hard hitter - great #5. Malakhov is a good offensive defenseman who refused to use his size. Good PP guy, but good enough to play the whole PP?

Again, probably right. I took him strictly for the PP, but I was actually impressed that he played a lot of minutes and maintained a good adjusted +/-. Now that I have Sargent, I wonder if I need Malakhov at all. What are your thoughts?

Very good coaching. Crisp is probably a bit behind Martin, but not much. And Muckler was one of the few coaches available who actually brings something as an assistant.

that's what I thought.

Muckler would actually be a fine standalone coach in the AAA too. He's pretty versatile that way.

I assume Allison is centering your first PP and not some guy named Anderson.

You got me. I was trying to get Anderson to moonlight with our AAA team after our major league team's early exit. All he asked for was a bottle of wine.

Very good PKing forwards, though I have to wonder why Manery is there over Plager on D.

You're right about this, too. Actually, I had planned on running out of room for Plager but another guy got taken, so I had room after all. I just hadn't revisited my special teams since then.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,982
Brooklyn
Sargent is definitely a better overall defenseman than Malakhov. But who takes Malakhov's spot on the PP then?

I do think saying that "Sargent played 25 minutes per game" for a few years is a little deceiving, as ice times of better player were higher in the 70s than in modern times.
 

VanIslander

A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sep 4, 2004
35,393
6,528
South Korea
First off, I could give a more detailed review if you linked their bios to your roster post. That aside...

My only concern is that other than Shepelev, they seem to be lacking in the gamebreaking offense that teams usually need in the playoffs.

Gamebreaking offense? How about the multiple Stanley Cup game hero?
.... Billy Barlow, "the most graceful skater of the party" who "gave a brilliant exhibition of skating backwards", "--Barlow was always a shadow that could not be shaken off, and turned the corners so cleverly and swiftly that he was always able to hold to his companion, and seemed able to pass him at any time if he chose to do so."

ALL TIME GOAL SCORING LIST AT THE END OF THE 1899 SEASON:
1. Bob McDougall (VICS) 49
2. A. E. "Dolly" Swift (Que) 37
3. Clary MacKerrow (MAAA) 34
4. Billy Barlow (MAAA) 33
5. Haviland Routh (MAAA) 32
6. Graham Drinkwater (Vics) 28

Barlow is credited with scoring the first Stanley Cup-winning goal in history in the final playoff match of 1894, actually scoring twice in each of the two playoff games, heralded as the hero of the game.

The year before, in 1893, he was instrumental in his team winning the Stanley Cup, which was decided based on best regular season record: "Billy Barlow was outstanding in the AAA's late season victory over Ottawa to secure first place and the Cup."

And come playoff time the multiple tourney excellence against the NHL's best of the two Soviet forwards has to factor in.

And Colville in the 1940 Stanley Cup championship was tied with several others for 2nd in goals scored with 3 on a team (more than his brother Neil) with spread out team scoring, like this Golden Gaels squad. Two years later, in the 1942 playoffs Mac Colville tied his team lead with 3 more goals (his brother got no goals). So, two good productive Stanley cup playoff production postseasons for Mac shows that come playoff time he'll do just fine.

The third line has guys with noteworthy playoff performances. Pivonka tied the team lead in playoff scoring with 13 points in 14 games in the 1988 postseason. He also led or tied the lead in team playoff goals scored in the 1989, 1994 and 1996 playoffs series. He will contribute come playoff time. Burridge was 3rd in team assists when Boston went to the 1988 Stanley Cup finals, 4th in assists and points for the Bruins when they went to the 1990 Stanley Cup finals. He will help offensively alongside Pivonka on a two-way third line. The other 3rd liner Larochelle scored in both the Habs' 1930 and 1931 Stanley Cup championship postseasons.

Sharp on the 4th line of this Queen's team tied the team lead in goals in Chicago's 2010 Stanley Cup championship and was 2nd in goals scored in their conference finals run the season before. Maloney was the Leafs top scoring winger in a second round exit in the 1979 playoffs with 3 goals and 6 points but that just suggests he might chip in a little. Schinkel was 2nd in team goals in Pittsburgh's 1970 conference finals run, another 4th line winger who ought to contribute a little.

To recap, this Queen's squad has lots of playoff scoring experience spread throughout the lines. Multiple big game performances against Canada's best for Shepelev and Golikov, three Stanley Cup game heroics for Barlow, plus multiple key-to-team production postseasons from Colville, Pivonka, Burridge and Sharp. Others have been among their team's leaders in at least one playoffs. The Golden Gaels are built for playoff success.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,982
Brooklyn
I'm only responding to this part, because it's the only part I have a serious issue with.

And Colville in the 1940 Stanley Cup championship was tied with several others for 2nd in goals scored with 3 on a team (more than his brother Neil) with spread out team scoring, like this Golden Gaels squad. Two years later, in the 1942 playoffs Mac Colville tied his team lead with 3 more goals (his brother got no goals). So, two good productive Stanley cup playoff production postseasons for Mac shows that come playoff time he'll do just fine.

Being able to chip in 3 goals on two separate occasions is an example of a player rising to the occasion twice. I also think it's as far from "game breaking offense" as you can get. He's a guy who peaked before WW2 and was never top 20 in points (though he did have 2 20th place finishes in goals and 1 12th place finish in assists, all in different seasons).

Edit: Randy McKay was 2nd on the 1995 champion NJ Devils in playoff goals with 8, and tied for 5th on the 2001 runner up NJ Devils in playoff goals with 6. I certainly wouldn't call him an offensive gamebreaker, however. If anything, McKay's playoff rankings should be more impressive, since they took place over larger sample sizes (4 round playoffs instead of 2 round playoffs).
 
Last edited:

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,210
7,369
Regina, SK
Sargent is definitely a better overall defenseman than Malakhov. But who takes Malakhov's spot on the PP then?

I do think saying that "Sargent played 25 minutes per game" for a few years is a little deceiving, as ice times of better player were higher in the 70s than in modern times.

Sargent was better on the PP too... per-game that is. Of course, maintaining it over double the games is the key.

You are right that the better players of the 70s seem to get more icetime that their modern counterparts. However- his icetime rankings in those three seasons (top-10 overall and ES each year) transcend the era trend.
 

markrander87

Registered User
Jan 22, 2010
4,216
61
Winnipeg Victorias

Andrew Brunette (A)-Jim McFadden-Mud Bruneteau
Cory Stillman-Dave Creighton-Glen Murray (A)
Shawn Burr-Bill Clement-Ian Laperierre
Rick Dudley-Daymond Langkow-Gary Leeman

Eric Brewer (C)-Oleg Tverdovsky
Janne Niinimaa-Robert Picard
Garth Boesch-Joe Reekie

Jose Theodore
Tim Thomas
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,210
7,369
Regina, SK
Carson seems like a good enough 2nd line center, nothing special.

It's funny how this works sometimes. Yeah, if Carson only had that short NHL career with a few top-10s, then that's exactly what he'd be - "a good enough 2nd line center, nothing special".

It seems with guys who have never played in the NHL we analyze and scrutinize their non-NHL careers to try to determine where they fit in, and that's great, but then as soon as there is some NHL sample size to look at, the rest becomes secondary. (think Vlad Nedomansky)

Compare Bill Carson to Moose Watson, an unquestioned amateur HHOFer and honestly, he looks just as good, if not better:

SOHA: Carson: 118 points in 70 games from 1919-1925, 33 in 16 playoff games
Watson: 114 points in 60 games from 1916-1932, 47 in 27 playoff games.

NHL: Carson: 3 seasons as a top-10 scorer.
Watson: Never went to the NHL

Olympics: Carson: Was invited but never went
Watson: Went, and dominated weak European teams.

Other: Carson: 4 years in college and another in the minors. 1 college scoring title.
Watson: None.

It looks like Watson was more "famous", perhaps by going overseas with the Granites and destroying all the other countries. But it's debatable whether he was better.
 

Nalyd Psycho

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
24,415
15
No Bandwagon
Visit site
-You've got some offense on your 4th line with 2 top 10s in assists between Kaleta and Marseille, what is the function of this line? They've got some offense, but none look like they're tough like a normal 4th line would be.

They are a scoring line. I've never understood why people are taken aback by scoring 4th lines like they will flounder.

There are two reasons why scoring 4th lines aren't in the NHL:

1. There isn't the depth of talent.
2. There isn't the prime ice time.

1. Is no problem in an ATD.
2. Because I use energy guys in top 6 roles, that leaves openings on special teams, so while they may get less 5 on 5 ice time, my 4th liners get some good special teams ice time.

And lets not forget that Chris Nilan will be used readily when I need toughness.
 

VanIslander

A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sep 4, 2004
35,393
6,528
South Korea
There are two reasons why scoring 4th lines aren't in the NHL:

1. There isn't the depth of talent.
2. There isn't the prime ice time.
I wholeheartedly disagree. This discounts the value of role players too much.

Whether NHL teams would ice all-star teams only is an open question. The fact is that 4th liners who are nonscorers have been an important part of hockey history, making an impact on teams. Stephane Yelle was an impact player for the Stanley Cup champion Avalanche. He took key faceoffs, he defended very well, he centered a couple of bangers who did change the energy of the game. The hustle and hits of nonscoring 8-10 minutes a night guys - not to mention fighters and enforcers - has been an important part of hockey, especially in the NHL. We have not drafted enough significant role players imo. There are some guys who impacted their eras a lot who ought to be extra skater options at the MLD and AAA level. The MLD 2010 champion Hammerheads had Stan Jonathan as a starter on the 4th line and it worked alongside Pahlsson. Jonathan brought qualities absent in most scorers and it made the team stronger overall. There will be a couple of more-than-deserving 4th line role player picks in the Double-A Draft, that's for sure, reflecting their importance in hockey history.
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,210
7,369
Regina, SK
I'm in the middle. Even here at the AAA level, clearly you can get players who can play roles while still being good with the puck, with the proven ability to put up some points at the NHL level.

that's what Queens' squad is built on, isn't it?

I'd never, ever draft a one-dimensional goon. Doesn't matter how important to history he was. I can get a guy who can fight nearly as well, and take a regular shift while performing other tasks on the ice besides slugging fists. Same principle applies to dime-a-dozen grinders. The further down you go, the more of them start to look like worthwhile picks, as their ability solely at grinding begins to overtake the value of average offensive players with passable grinding ability.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm most often concerned with the overall impact of a player and the overall list of skills he has, and less often how great he was at one particular skill, provided that one particular skill isn't scoring goals or setting them up.
 

VanIslander

A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sep 4, 2004
35,393
6,528
South Korea
... clearly you can get players who can play roles while still being good with the puck, with the proven ability to put up some points at the NHL level.

that's what Queen's squad is built on, isn't it?
Yes, THIS team is built that way, based on design for its coaching style. But in another draft with another team, another 4th line strategy may be used.

The further down you go, the more of them start to look like worthwhile picks, as their ability solely at grinding begins to overtake the value of average offensive players with passable grinding ability.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm most often concerned with the overall impact of a player
On these points we agree.
 

BillyShoe1721

Terriers
Mar 29, 2007
17,252
6
Philadelphia, PA
Toledo Walleye

Coach: Ernie McLean

Nick Mickoski - Thomas Gradin (C) - Bud Poile (A)
Patrik Sundstrom - Tim Young - Scott Young
Johan Franzen - Terry Crisp - Pentti Lund
Greg Adams - Stephane Yelle (A) - Alex Burrows
Anatoli Semenov - Charles Tobin

Nikolai Makarov - Al Dewsbury
Pavel Kubina - Tom Bladon
Pat Quinn - Howie Young
Dennis Kearns

Bert Lindsay
Rollie Melanson

PP1: Nick Mickoski - Thomas Gradin - Bud Poile - Nikolai Makarov - Tom Bladon
PP2: Johan Franzen/Patrik Sundstrom - Tim Young - Scott Young - Pavel Kubina - Al Dewsbury
PK1: Stephane Yelle - Pentti Lund - Al Dewsbury - Nikolai Makarov
PK2: Terry Crisp - Tim Young - Pavel Kubina - Pat Quinn

First thing I want to say, you stole many, many of the guys that I wanted to draft.

-First line features two of the best wingers in the draft between a center that compliments their skills by adding defensive ability and grit. A very good first line, and one that might be my favorite in the draft.
-How much wing as Sundstrom played? I see him listed as a C. Anyway, he's a good offensive player, Tim Young as one great season and is a good playmaker, and Scott Young is the guy that can forecheck and work the corners. Both Youngs are decent defensively, no real weaknesses with this line.
-Franzen can do pretty much anything, but his small peak is so short and limited, but he is big, strong, defensively conscious, and talented. Crisp is another good all around player, but not as offensively talented as Franzen. Lund is defensively conscious. None of these guys is a pure shutdown guy, and this 3rd line will be one of the higher scoring ones in the draft.
-This 4th line will be a tough one to play against. All 3 are solid defensively, Adams and Burrows brings some offensive talent, and Yelle is one of the better pure defensive players in the draft. Burrows brings a pest element and physicality as well.

-Makarov is a good player who has an impressive goal total in the Soviet league, indicating he was good offensively, but how good was he defensively? I really don't know either way. Dewsbury brings physicality, and isn't inept in the offensive zone. Good 1st pairing.
-Classic puck mover paired with a defensive guy. Kubina's got an all star game to his credit, and Bladon was very talented, but wildly inconsistent. I'd expect Kearns to get into some games, who is a very similar player to Bladon.
-Both provide a lot of physicality to a very tough 3rd pairing, and both are mediocre but not terrible in the offensive zone.

-Lindsay is a very solid starter, Rollie had a great season in 82-83, but after that he wasn't all that great. Average backup IMO.

-Punch is a good coach, and a guy I was considering when I picked Trotz.

-1st PP unit is very good, defensemen on the 2nd unit are sub-par IMO. Very good PK forwards.

-Overall, your offense is very, very good. Defense isn't as good, and goaltending and coaching are good.
 

VanIslander

A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sep 4, 2004
35,393
6,528
South Korea
Excellent analysis of Toledo, BiLLY_ShOE. I agree with all of it. (And he also stole from my shortlists Mickoski, Poile, Adams, Crisp). Additionally, I think Crisp OR Yelle ought to be starters, not both, as neither brings offense.

Makarov is a huge question mark on the top pair as he wasn't a star on the international stage (he didn't play for the national team against the world's best) but instead has gaudy totals in the domestic Soviet league only. But Nikolai is Sergei Makarov's older brother and there are hints at his greatness. Here is from a bio on Sergei that is relevant to Nikolai but is interesting all on its own:

Sergei Makarov was born as the third son of Mikhail and Evdokia Makarov on June 19th 1958 in Cheliabinsk, an industrial city of 2 million people located near the Ural Mountains in the central part of Russia. Life was not very easy for his family. His father was a worker in the metal industry and his mother looked after the three sons and Sergei's younger sister Anna. Unlike their father, who played soccer in the company team, the Makarov sons preferred to play hockey. Nikolai, the oldest, Juri, the second and Sergei always played on the floor of their house in the "Makarov Championship". Each of the boys symbolised a Moscow hockey team. While Juri pretended to be Spartak, Nikolai was Dynamo, and Sergei played for the Red Army team in his fantasy. Because of his connection to this sport through his brothers, Sergei used every free minute after school to play on the street and on frozen ponds. with his brother Nikolai

His family and especially his brother Nikolai, who only began playing hockey at the age of ten, were very important for Sergei Makarov. At the age of five, Sergei used to skate behind his brother, trying to be faster than him. From that time Sergei developed great ambition and stubornness to be the best. This attitude and his habit of speaking his mind were sometimes a problem for him, later in his career. He always played with older and stronger kids and so he had to work on his speed, to avoid getting hit. At the age of eight he had his first minor success. While playing for a kids' team at a regional championship he was awarded MVP in his age group. His mother had to brake him and Nikolai in their ambitions, because she wanted the kids to have a good education. She succeeded in this, because all her boys were good at school.

All of the three Makarov sons passed their examinations in an institute for sports and sciences. Sergei began playing for the team of his father's company, while Nikolai was discovered by the Red Army team and sent to Chebarkul, a kind of Red Army farm team. Nikolai's move was also very important for Sergei. He often visited Nikolai with his family and while watching him play he saw a young guy playing for Cherbakul who changed his life forever. His eyes always kept following one certain player who was to become the best winger ever produced by the Soviet hockey system and the idol of Sergei Makarov - Valery Kharlamov! Makarovs idol Valery Kharlamov

When Nikolai went back to Cheliabinsk between games, he always had to show Sergei Kharlamov's moves and his style of playing. It was not always easy for Nikolai, because Kharlamov made some moves that only he was able to do. So Sergei used every free minute to try to play like his idol, always on the ice, repeating the moves his brother had shown him. One of the biggest moments in Sergei's life was, when Valery Kharlamov visited the Makarovs in their house in Cheliabinsk for dinner. This was probably the time then Sergei decided to do everything to finally become a hockey player. The first step was to join the local team, Traktor Cheliabinsk.

First he played in several of Traktor's junior teams. During those years Makarov was often criticised by the coaches when his team lost. They often blamed him for failure. The stubborn Makarov wanted to quit with hockey, but Anatoli Kostrikov, who was the coach of the senior team at that time, began to observe the talented winger and was able to convince him to keep playing. In the season of 1976/77 Sergei played eleven games for the senior team, which surprisingly finished third in the Soviet Championship. That year he was also invited to play for the Soviet Union in the Junior World Championschips, where he won his first Gold Medal.

He and his teammates, among them Sergei Starikov, Sergei's best friend at that time, were able to repeat their success in the following year in Canada, where the nineteen year-old Makarov was named "best player" in five games. Although he was very successful, with exception of the Traktor fans, the hockey experts in Russia didn't see his talent. A lot of people, even in their own federation, criticised Viktor Tikhonov for inviting Sergei Makarov to some friendly games for the senior team in Scandinavia before the World Championship in 1978. But Tikhonov, who always did things his way, didn't want to listen to the critics. Surprisingly, Makarov was named for the Championships in Prague in 1978. The Soviet Union won Gold after two disappointments in 1976 and 1977. Makarov was picked to play for the Red Army team.

That was the start of a glorious career. Makarov went to CSKA Moscow, where they had the strongest team of all time. Zhluktov, Kapustin, Lebedev, Petrov, Mikhailov, Maltsev and Sergei's idol Kharlamov were the stars of the team, and nobody thought that this young guy would have a chance against the other players. But together with the other Red Army prospect Vladimir Krutov, he was able to become an important part of the team. In that year he scored 18 goals for 39 points.

...

On July 1st 1989, the Calgary Flames signed Sergei Makarov... The right wing was frequently in conflict with his teammates and with coach Terry Crisp. The tactics of Crisp were based on short shifts, putting the puck deep and getting plenty of shots on goal. In Russia, his line usually had shifts of about two minutes and didn't play dump and chase hockey. Makarov was very successful with the "Soviet style" of hockey and didn't believe in dump and chase hockey. He was 31 years old when he arrived in Calgary and didn't want to, or wasn't able to, change his game. He told friends that he was stunned about the lack of passing for precision shots in the NHL. He also told a newspaper that he would welcome a trade to the Vancouver Canucks to play with Krutov and Larionov. This was not a good way of breaking the ice between him, his teammates and the coach. Terry Crisp and Sergei Makarov never became good friends.

... he was reunited with his former teammate and friend Igor Larionov at the beginning of the 1993-94 season. At that time, San Jose was still a very new team in the NHL franchise and the first seasons had been a complete disappointment for club officials and fans. But that was to change in the coming year.

After a poor start to the season, the Sharks had developed into a serious competitor, likely to reach the playoffs. Together.. the two Soviet veterans formed a strong first line and helped the team to the playoffs, where they upset the favourite Detroit Red Wings in seven games and reached the conference semi-finals against Toronto. Makarov and Larionov, both in their mid 30's, were meanwhile playing something like they had in the old days. Although they both had some disputes with young coach Kevin Constantine about their style of playing they respected him, and on the other hand they were respected by the other players as the leaders, especially Larionov, who was the brain of the team. Makarov was the first player to score 30 goals in one season in the Sharks history. He also scored the first penalty shot in San Jose's franchise.

In spite of his success in San Jose, Sergei Makarov was not a public man and not always available for press and fans. But it was his job to play hockey and help the Sharks to win. And he did it very well, at least in his first season with the Sharks.

What is he doing now? Sergei Makarov still lives in the Bay Area, California with his wife Mary and his small children; son Nicky and daughter Katya. His oldest son, Artem lives in Calgary. The tennis fan Makarov enjoys his new, anonymous life. Sometimes he visits Sharks games and still misses the atmosphere and the game. Sometimes he still plays post-game matches. He is a certified player agent who acts as a liaison for young Russians wanting to play in North America. Several times a year he visits Cheliabinsk to see his family and friends. Maybe we will see him one day as a coach.

In 2001 Sergei was inducted into the IIHF Hall of Fame. He received that honours during the World Championship in Germany. Hopefully it's only a question of time till he follows his former teammates Vladislav Tretiak and Viacheslav Fetisov as third Russian player to the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto. He definitely deserves it.

http://www.math.toronto.edu/gaidash/Hockey/Text/makarov.html[/QUOTE]
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad