Miracle on Ice or 1996: which was the USA's most significant victory?

[PrimumHockeyist]

Full season is what makes it count way heavier for me than a single game. A sustained shock.

It must have been cool seeing how that played out over time.

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

As far as single-game upsets go, the Miracle on Ice wasn't even the biggest upset the Soviet national team experienced, as others have pointed out in various threads over the years:

View attachment 794100

But as far as single-tournament upsets go, the American gold medal in 1980 is indeed hard to beat.

Agreed. Closest is probably Finland in 2019 since then.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

Agreed. Closest is probably Finland in 2019 since then.

Even better.

Mind you, there was very strong representation on TC72

Very strong BOSTON representation.

 

[Fenway]

The internet was in its infancy in 96 so I don't recall how much attention the World Cup of Hockey received in the US but from my understanding the tournament received little coverage outside of hockey circles.

The Boston Globe covered it but the Red Sox and Patriots took center stage.

The tournament had a website but it was basic

1996 World Cup of Hockey

FOX had the rights to cover the final but chose not to. Bettman made a mental note and the next NHL TV contract went to ESPN and ABC

World Cup Broadcasts

WORLD CUP OF HOCKEY ANNOUNCES WORLDWIDE BROADCAST PLANS



TORONTO (Mar. 7, 1996) The World Cup of Hockey tournament's full schedule of 19 games will be seen through an the extensive worldwide network of broadcast partners. The lineup of broadcast partners parallels the talent at ice level, with the premier sports programmers participating in the inaugural event.

The World Cup of Hockey will be broadcast live in prime time across Canada. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and Societe Radio-Canada (SRC) will cover up to eleven of the North American contests. CBC will provide the host feed for all games from North American venues. The Sports Network (TSN) and Le Resaux Des Sports (RDS) will provide live broadcasts from all European venues and will broadcast two of the North American pool games. They will also provide extensive on-site news coverage of the tournament.

The new powerhouse in American sports broadcasting, Liberty Sports and Fox, will distribute World Cup broadcasts in the U.S. through a unique combination of Liberty's thirteen regional sports networks, Fox's 25-million home fX Network, and a syndicate of the strongest local over-the-air independent and network affiliates in the U.S. The FOX Network retains the right to broadcast the World Cup final, depending on the matchup and its scheduling commitments. Collectively, this syndication effort and network will deliver World Cup games live to over 50 million U.S. households.

Broadcast rights outside of North America have been awarded to CWL Telesport, the renowned Swiss sports programmer/distributor and long-time partner of the International Ice Hockey Federation in telecasts of the annual World Championship. CWL is now actively engaged in the bid award process for games in Europe and abroad and will develop a tiered broadcast distribution system to take advantage of as many networks as possible. Competition for rights will peak in European countries participating in the World Cup of Hockey - the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Russia, Slovakia and Sweden. These markets represent 90.8 million television households. Other European countries have expressed high interest in the tournament. CWL Telesport will also negotiate for comprehensive coverage in Asia, particularly in Japan, which will host the 1998 Olympic Winter Games in Nagano. CWL Telesport and the World Cup of Hockey will announce their international broadcast partners when the bidding and award process is complete.

​

 

[Crosby2010]

Yes, but what established then, imo, is that the days of thinking that the US could not win any bestie were over. They claimed their seat and there hasn't been a game since when they weren't a threat to win any tourney since. That distinction was totally earned. That what made 96 so historic imo. Personally, I'd rather leave it on that.

As for Canada, my lingering feeling was wanting to be on the ice with the likes of Mess and Gretz in 96. They gave me so many great moments, they were my age. It was so beautiful how they fought. It sucked like hell to lose, but I was also glad for the real hockey Americans who 'got' what that victory really represented. Dingo was entirely correct, although we rarely say such things, but here's the bottom line regarding how the last half century has played out: You wanna be a real world champ? You go thru Canada in a bestie. But the idea that we were unstoppable was a fifteen year old myth by then.

Here's a thought. In Game One in 72, after two periods we knew that we had totally underestimated the Russians. But what is someone said that in 24 years the Americans would beat us in a bestie in the same town? Which would have seemed more improbable, then?

I can remember just how defeated Gretzky looked right after the U.S. empty netter. He had the puck right there to put it past Richter and it bounced over his stick. So heartbreaking.

I think people would have laughed if you said that the Americans would beat the best Canadians in 1996, back in 1972.

 

[Theokritos]

Any thoughts on how 81CC went over in Russia?

Honestly, I don't know. I will get back to this if I have the time to look at some sources.

 

[Crosby2010]

I will even go further than what was said about how the Americans were perceived in 1972 and who in their right mind would have thought they would beat us 24 years later. I know in 1991 the idea was that they were arriving, and when you look at their roster in 1991 it certainly was a team with some youth and up and coming talent. For example, Roenick and Modano were both 21. Leetch was 23.

But in all honesty, I think it seemed in 1991 as if Canada was going to be dominant for a long time. Gretzky, Messier and Coffey were 30. All still playing great hockey, Gretzky along with Lemieux was the best player in the NHL still. Lemieux didn't play but was at the top of his game at this time. Lindros was the "next one" and had just gotten drafted. I think if you said the Americans would win in 5 years you would have some believers, but it would be hard to imagine Gretzky being older, Lemieux being absent and Lindros never really bringing that winning formula.

 

[sdf]

Any thoughts on how 81CC went over in Russia?

I have often wondered if Kharlamov's recent passing made that victory especially meaningful...?

How it went over Russia? Do you see in your stereotipical fantasies a parade on the red sqwer?

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

How it went over Russia? Do you see in your stereotipical fantasies a parade on the red sqwer?

A mind reader, are you?

Come to think of it, there might not have been a parade because the Canada Cups were fair tournaments, unlike the IIHFs and Olympics.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Id say Miracle on Ice, except wasn’t that the tournament that the US played tape delayed, and everyone knew the winner already.

 

[Section 104]

1960

No, actually 1980 is far more impo. Two movies aftually the first being a tv movie with Karl Malden, of all people, playing Herb Brooks. As I understand it the Winter Olympics in 1960 got little tv coverage..an hour in the afternoon although goalie Jack McCartan was billed as “He gets a $1,000 a game” when he signed with the Rangers.

 

[CharlestownChiefsESC]

It's a debate but yet 1 I'm in on the minority of. 1980 was huge, it was a David vs Goliath story college kids vs professional amateurs the best in the world. And let's not debate this from the 79 challenge cup to the 84 Cc the Soviets were the best in the world. Alas at this time the struggle was real between the Nhl/Hockey Canada and the Iihf. Despite the big victory the Olympics and World Chamionships were skewed towards the European teams especially the Eastern block teams. And as much as it's made out to be an impossible victory let's take a few things into account. 1. Herb Brooks was a visionary he knew that the old Canadian style wasn't enough anymore but he knew sheer reliance on the soviet systems play could be broken. As we also know he stressed conditioning to skate with the better teams. So in theory yes it was an upset but if you take that team and line them up vs the best American pros at the time my money is on the Olympic team. But Herb Brooks did say 1 thing before the game vs the Soviets we play them 10 times we might lose 9. Which leads us to 1996.

Unlike the Olympics there was nothing skewed here the best "available" players played. No rule bending no anything. And this team wasn't college kids this was a team backstopped by Mike Richter (2 years removed from a cup), Brian Leetch and Chris Chelios who had won Norris trophies, and up top you had names like Mike Modano,Tony Amonte,Doug Weight,Brett Hull , and Bill Guerin just to name a few. Despite this at the time on paper you'd probably rank Canada,Russia, and potentially Sweden ahead of them especially Canada and imo the Canadians had taken back over as the premier hockey country in the mid 80s especially after 1987. Now Canadians balk about no Lemieux,Kariya or Bourque. But they still had so much talent (Gretzky was still a 100 pt guy,Messier was close to potting 50 the previous year and well Lindros and Sakic just had monster years) and the US was missing Jeremy Roenick who at the time was probably the best American forward.

So this all harkens back to above where Herb Brooks said in 1980 "we play them 10 times we might lose 9. " I tend to agree with this if you lined both teams up 2 days later a week later a month later etc etc the Soviets probably win. The Soviet players even approached Mike Erizione years later to have an alumni rematch and the American players flat out refused. 1 other thing to remember too is the 1980 team didn't see the Soviets till the medal round and well it was on American soil. Which brings us to 1996 there was no waiting time here game 1 of the round robin was a 5-3 win vs those Canadians, ok 1 win and yes it was in Philadelphia ok 1 game 1 win well harken back to Brooks 9 out of 10 speech. Anyway as we all know the tournament went on 2 wins vs Russia were nice but this was Russia not the Soviet Union. So here we are a best of 3 final with those same Canadians. No choice here you gotta play 2. Game 1 in Philadelphia again Canada wins on US soil so you go back to what Herb Brooks said. On top of all of it unlike 1980 now you have to go to Montreal and win 2 in front of a raucous Canadian crowd not 1 game 2 games. Game 2 the theater was set this was Canada's time to win again well we spoiled that party. However I'm sure lots of confident Canadians and fearful Americans all had the uh oh its Montreal on a Saturday night winner take all and well you gave em a good run. Well that was true until the 3rd period where we all know what happened. So to summarize 1980 1 game on American soil in the Olympics where Brooks again said you play then 10 times you might lose 9. 1996 4 games played 2 in the US 2 in Canada in Montreal. The games in Montreal had the meaning. 1-1 on US soil in Philadelphia 2-0 on Canadian soil in Montreal both needed to win the tournament. So my answer is 1996.

 

[Sentinel]

A mind reader, are you?

Come to think of it, there might not have been a parade because the Canada Cups were fair tournaments, unlike the IIHFs and Olympics.

This better be sarcasm. Tarantino-level sarcasm.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

This better be sarcasm. Tarantino-level sarcasm.

If you are suggesting that the CCups didn't play out fairly, I can respect that opinion. What I meant by 'fair' is the notion of best teams being able to play. I

edit - or, is this about the Tug?

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

all hardens back to above where Herb Brooks said in 1980 "we play them 10 times we might lose 9. " I tend to agree with this if you lined both teams up 2 days later a week later a month later etc etc the Soviets probably win.

I've never been so sure about that. Looking back, I've wondered if what Brooks showed then was that systems hockey can take you a long way. It's hard to express what I'm saying on this because I don't break the game down like people can on this board. I'm not even sure if what Brooks did was that 'new' of an idea, but they managed to work with the Soviets or hang with them. I wouldn't be surprised if they won at least more against the mighty Soviets of that time, who many said were better than the Canadians around this time as I recall. But the more telling point is that I doubt there would have been many routs.

Since then we've seen many lesser teams hang with or beat the elite teams, like Belarus v Sweden in 02, the Swiss v Canada in 06 and Latvia.

My answer is 1996.

Agreed. To me it symbolized something that we knew then, and has proved true ever since. The USA is a power nation that can beat the best. Period

 

[Zine]

I've never been so sure about that. Looking back, I've wondered if what Brooks showed then was that systems hockey can take you a long way. It's hard to express what I'm saying on this because I don't break the game down like people can on this board. I'm not even sure if what Brooks did was that 'new' of an idea, but they managed to work with the Soviets or hang with them. I wouldn't be surprised if they won at least more against the mighty Soviets of that time, who many said were better than the Canadians around this time as I recall. But the more telling point is that I doubt there would have been many routs.

Since then we've seen many lesser teams hang with or beat the elite teams, like Belarus v Sweden in 02, the Swiss v Canada in 06 and Latvia.


Agreed. To me it symbolized something that we knew then, and has proved true ever since. The USA is a power nation that can beat the best. Period

Brooks didn't implement a ‘systems game’ per se. He just made some subtle changes by incorporating a more European style into the US’s game.

If I remember right It was either Petrov, Balders or Zhluktov (I’ll have to look it up) who said Brooks’ style of game wasn't anything they hadn't seen before. Rather it was the USA’s stamina and youthful enthusiasm that was most impressive….like running into a buzzsaw of emotion.
Tikhonov and co. took the USA far too lightly. They had already lost the psychological game the minute they stepped on the ice.

 

[Crosby2010]

I always wondered why Brooks wasn't a major success in the NHL. He certainly had the old-school coaching methods going for him back then. He coached the Rangers from 1981-'85 and probably his best shot at things was that classic series vs. the Islanders in 1984. But then just the Northstars in 1988, the Devils in 1993 and the Penguins in 2000. For whatever reason Brooks just hung around for a season with those last three teams. Also coached the U.S. Olympic team in 2002, and people forget the France team in 1998. Do people think that maybe his coaching just couldn't be sustained quite as well over the long haul and he was built for a short tournament? Because while I will say the Soviets themselves did choke badly in 1980 against the Americans, Brooks still had the team prepared to play against them.

 

[Pierre Larouche]

Brooks didn't implement a ‘systems game’ per se. He just made some subtle changes by incorporating a more European style into the US’s game.

If I remember right It was either Petrov, Balders or Zhluktov (I’ll have to look it up) who said Brooks’ style of game wasn't anything they hadn't seen before. Rather it was the USA’s stamina and youthful enthusiasm that was most impressive….like running into a buzzsaw of emotion.
Tikhonov and co. took the USA far too lightly. They had already lost the psychological game the minute they stepped on the ice.

Brooks also tried to put together a team consisting of some of the best skaters he could find to keep up with the European's speed and larger sheets of ice. He also trained their butts off to have endurance.

 

[Crosby2010]

Brooks also tried to put together a team consisting of some of the best skaters he could find to keep up with the European's speed and larger sheets of ice. He also trained their butts off to have endurance.

I know there is a couple of gaffes in the "Miracle" movie such as the Challenge Cup was not played in the fall of 1979 like they showed but rather February of 1979 to replace the All-Star game. But in general a hockey movie made by Disney of all companies really seemed to hit some details that I am surprised they followed up on. Brooks by all accounts was hard nosed to the players and worked them hard. You might think that scene after the Norway exhibition game was just pure Hollywood drama where he skates them hard well after the game was over but this actually happened. I saw an interview with a few of them and I can recall one of the players, Buzz Schneider, saying that he didn't have to participate in it because he left that game with an injury and had already showered. So that did happen. Ralph Cox was the last cut of the 1980 team, just like in the movie. And my guess is Herb in real life was probably compassionate to the guy because he too was cut from the 1960 Olympic team (also in the movie). By the way, Cox did not have an NHL career but he did work under Craig Patrick in Pittsburgh as a scout and he has his name on the Cup from 1991 and 1992. My guess is Patrick liked him way back in 1980 when he was assistant coach to Brooks.

Anyway, but you are right, the movie portrays that as well that Brooks picked a fast team and one that could compete well. Everything lined up for the Miracle on Ice game vs. Russia and I honestly think the Soviets don't let that sort of thing happen again if they play them, but it just takes one shot and they were certainly pesky to play against.

 

[Boxscore]

1980 was far more significant than 1996. Miracle on Ice is one of the greatest underdog stories in human history. A bunch of college kids defeating the greatest hockey machine in history (after said machine just dominated the best professionals on the planet) is an event that happens once in a lifetime. This would be akin to a bunch of college players beating a team lead by McDavid, MacKinnon, Pastrnak, Makar, Pettersson, Matthews, Draisaitl, Hughes, Shesterkin, etc. on the world's largest stage. The chances of that happening are 1 in 10 million. Add the political and cultural impact, and there is no comparison to 1996 imho.

If we really think about it, 1996 wasn't that much of an upset in a short series. Let's start with Richter vs. Cujo in net. Both great goalies and "at their absolute best" were practically a wash. This wasn't like prime Roy vs. Gibson. Gretzky and Mess were aging, Stevie Y. was getting up there. Lindros was in his prime but... as much as I was a big Lindros guy... he was never the type of player to put a team on his back and win a title. Sakic, Shanny, Graves, Stevens, Foote, etc. were all at the top of their games.

But let's consider the Americans were loaded with elite talent as well. And all of their key players we're at the top of their games. LeClair, Tkachuk, Roenick, Guerin, Hatcher, Leetch, Schneider, etc. were running on all cylinders. Guys like Chelios and LaFontaine were huge. And, let's not forget that one of the greatest goal scorers on the planet (Brett Hull) was playing for Team USA.

Sure, I considered the 96 WCOH an "upset" but nothing drastic. It would have been far more impressive if the 96 Americans defeated the 87 Team Canada team with prime Gretz and Mario.

 

[These Are The Days]

1980 is like a top 5 upset in sports history for the world. If you watch the game anyone who says that USA didn't catch every possible break and live by sheer dumb luck is kidding themselves. Those kids had no business winning that game.

USA should have been clown smacked 9-2 that night and instead pulled off an upset that hasn't been duplicated in measure since the night it happened.

 

[MadLuke]

Sure, I considered the 96 WCOH an "upset" but nothing drastic. It would have been far more impressive if the 96 Americans defeated the 87 Team Canada team with prime Gretz and Mario.

I think this is the premise for 1996 being more significant, the fact that it was 2 of 3 won fair and square with arguably the best team simply winning, instead of an upset.

 

[CharlestownChiefsESC]

Roenick

Didn't play

 

[Boxscore]

Didn't play

You are correct. After I wrote that, I thought to myself... "Wait, I don't remember seeing Roenick!"