Round 2, Vote 4 (HOH Top 50 Non-NHL Europeans)

[Theokritos]

IMPORTANT NOTE: Post 2 of every voting thread will contain instructions as to who to send your votes to. If you send your votes to the wrong person, we can't guarantee that they will be counted.

MOD: This is a strictly on-topic thread. Posts that don't focus on the players listed in Post 2 will be deleted or moved at the discretion of the moderators.

Before we begin, just a recap on how Round 2 will operate:

Round 2

• The top 8-10 ranked players from the aggregate list will be posted in a thread. This number will slowly increase up to 14 players as we get into later rounds.
• Players will be listed in alphabetical order to avoid creating bias.
• Player merits and rankings will be open for discussion and debate for a period of five days. Administrators may extend the discussion period if it remains active.
• Final voting will occur for two days, via PM.
• Participants rank their top 8 players every round. 1st place votes will be worth 8 points, 2nd place votes worth 7 points, etc.
• Ordinarily the top 4 vote getters will be added to the final list after each of the first five votes. However, if there are major breaks in the voting totals, we will add more or less than then 4 in certain rounds. After vote five we will ordinarily add 5 players per vote until the final list is complete.
• Tiebreak procedure: If two players are tied in voting points after a round, the higher ranking will go to the player who was ahead on a greater number of ballots. If they are still tied, it will remain a tie on the final list.

Additionally, there are a couple guidelines we'd ask that everyone agree to abide by:
These might be tweaked to allow longer or shorter debating periods depending on how the process moves along.

Additionally, there are a couple guidelines we'd ask that everyone agree to abide by:

• Please try to stay on-topic in the thread
• Please remember that this is a debate on opinions and there is no right or wrong. Please try to avoid words like "stupid" "dumb" "wrong" "sophistry" etc. when debating.
• Please treat other debaters with respect
• Please don't be a wallflower. All eligible voters are VERY HIGHLY encouraged to be active participants in the debate.
• Please maintain an open mind. The purpose of the debate is to convince others that your views are more valid. If nobody is willing to accept their opinions as flexible there really is no point in debating.

Eliglible Voters (15):
Batis; DN28; Hedberg; Johnny Engine; KriminellPipa; MadArcand; Robert Gordon Orr; Sanf; seventieslord; Sprague Cleghorn; Sturminator; TAnnala; tarheelhockey; TheDevilMadeMe; VMBM

All posters are encouraged to participate in the debates and discussions, but only those listed above will be eligible for the final votes.

Click to read more...

 

[Theokritos]

Vote 4 will begin now and debates are scheduled to run through Monday, December 14. You may PM votes to Theokritos starting on Sunday, December 13.

Vote 4 will be for places 12 through 16 on the Top 50 list.

Here are the candidates, listed alphabetically:

Aleksey Kasatonov
Vladimir Krutov
Igor Larionov
Milan Nový
Vladimir Petrov
František Pospíšil
Aleksandr Ragulin
Jan Suchý
Aleksandr Yakushev

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

First impressions:

Suchy is likely to be #1 for me this round. The only other available player who competes with him for peak is Krutov, and Krutov has his other issues.

Glad to see Yakushev available; of the new candidates, he has the best shot at my top 4-5.

Novy's a good add too. I doubt he makes my top 4-5 this round, but I think he's competitive with Larionov.

Ragulin goes into this round an easy last. Sure, he racked up a ton of domestic All-Star nods in the USSR in the 60s, but who was his competition? In the WHCs, his awards record isn't as good as I'd like; then when Suchy and Svedberg hit their strides, he didn't get named best defenseman again. Regardless, I think there needs to be a big gap between Vasiliev/Kasatonov and Ragulin.

 

[Theokritos]

Ragulin goes into this round an easy last. Sure, he racked up a ton of domestic All-Star nods in the USSR in the 60s, but who was his competition? In the WHCs, his awards record isn't as good as I'd like; then when Suchy and Svedberg hit their strides, he didn't get named best defenseman again.

On top of that, he didn't get any substantial support at all in WHC All-star voting after 1967.

1968: less than 7 votes (if he got any at all)
1969: less than 10 votes (if he got any at all)
1970: no votes
1971: no votes
1972: 1 vote

 

[Batis]

Continuing on the Krutov discussion from last thread.

Well, "a product of steroids" to me equals "useless without steroids". And I don't know any steroids that can give a player speed/skating skills, puckhandling skills, passing skills and goal-scoring ability and a good hockey mind - all the things that Krutov possessed from very early on. If he had been "ugly and one-dimensional but very effective" type of player, I might question him too. But he wasn't...

Yes I would say that in 79/80 when Krutov at age 19 finished 2nd in the Soviet player of the year voting he relied almost exclusively on his skating, stickhandling, passing, shooting and hockey iq. He already seemed to be pretty strong for his size and especially his age though but I don´t feel like much of his game was based on that strength. At least based on his performance at the Olympics and in the pre-tournament games that are available on youtube.

At his peak 85/86-87/88 Krutov obviously used his strength more but even at that time I feel like the strength factor is overstated when talking about his effectiveness as a player at least as far as creating offence goes. To demonstrate this here are the 13 of Krutovs 14 points at the 1987 Canada Cup that I could find. I would definitely say that the vast majority of them are a result of his skills and/or hockey mind rather than his strength. And my impression from watching every available game of prime Krutov on youtube is that the majority of his points came from his skating/stickhandling/hockey mind rather than from his strength and board work. This is not saying that he did not use his strength which he obviously did often fighting hard in the corners. Just that I don´t think that his offensive production relied as much on it as people seem to think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u06yewzXc1I&t=49m25s
Krutov intercepts a pass while penalty killing, skates away from the defencemen and scores on the breakaway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFhUccKr19o&t=7m57s
Krutov makes a good outlet pass to Bykov. Then Bykov and Makarov produces a great passing combination before Makarov scores.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFsfKFGuHoE&t=31m8s
Krutov skates the puck in on the powerplay and then finds Makarov at the backpost with a great pass.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFsfKFGuHoE&t=99m27s
Makarov steals the puck on the boxplay and gives it to Krutov who makes a passing combination with Kasatonov and then scores. Once again a goal based on skill/passing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2Ha2XgG6Z8&t=52m50s
Stelnov skates the puck up the ice and passes it to Makarov who finds Krutov with a great backhandpass. Krutov makes no mistake in front of the net. Here Krutov shows good positioning in front of the net but his strength was not a major factor in finding that position but rather his hockey iq.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPBMkFkYqwQ&t=1m46s
Krutov scores on a rebound on the powerplay. As far as I can see this goal is also based more on good positioning than strength although he shows some strength when he manages to bury the second opportunity after missing the first. Still I would more call this good positioning than strength.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPBMkFkYqwQ&t=40m25s
In my opinion the only point in the tournament where Krutovs strength was the key. Krutov first skates the puck into the zone and then battles hard in the corners before he gets Bykov the puck in front of the net.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPBMkFkYqwQ&t=75m35s
Krutov breaks up a pass in the neutral zone and then finds Larionov with a good pass. Then Krutov picks up the rebound on Larionovs shot and passes the puck to Fetisov who finds Makarov in front of the net for an easy tap in. Krutov shows a lot of hockey iq and good passing on this play.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FeJ3lCpU6U&t=32m47s
Krutov scores a powerplay goal on a rebound after showing great patience and stickhandling his way around Fuhr.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FeJ3lCpU6U&t=40m40s
Krutovs shows good hand eye coordination and gives Makarov a shorthanded breakaway which he scores on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeIsITzLz1s&t=58m55s
Krutov picks up a powerplay assist after giving Fetisov the puck on the point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeIsITzLz1s&t=64m10s
Krutov and Makarov combines to create an absolutely brilliant shorthanded goal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oq3CYwQit9s&t=17m8s
Krutov finds an open Makarov in front of the net.

 

[Theokritos]

Aleksandr Yakushev's "Player of the Year" voting finishes in his prime (1972-1976): 3, 3, 4, 5, 6

For comparison:
Kharlamov: 1, 2, 2, 2, 5
Maltsev: 1, 4, 4, 8, 9
Mikhailov: 2, 5, 6, 10
Petrov: 2, 4, 9, 12

 

[VMBM]

I didn't know that this project was about the Non-NHL Europeans of the 1970s and 1980s only!
The lack of pre-1970s players is really starting to bug me.

Okay, there's Ragulin, but was he really even the 2nd best 1960s (mostly) Soviet player after Firsov? Not in my opinion, but what the hell do I know.

Milan Novy, OMG. Way too early for him. He gets no vote from me, that's for sure.

For me, the top 3 will be Petrov, Pospisil and Suchy - in that order. Or I might still swap Suchy and Pospisil.

 

[VMBM]

Aleksandr Yakushev's "Player of the Year" voting finishes in his prime (1972-1976): 3, 3, 4, 5, 6

For comparison:
Kharlamov: 1, 2, 2, 2, 5
Maltsev: 1, 4, 4, 8, 9
Mikhailov: 2, 5, 6, 10
Petrov: 2, 4, 9, 12

Fair enough, but why such hand-picked data? Yes, I'd have to agree that Yakushev's peak was pretty impressive (if you also think about his two all-star berths at the WHCs plus Summit Series performances), but it's not like those other Soviet players necessarily peaked at the same time (or they had peak also outside those years too) - except for Kharlamov.

If both Yakushev and Petrov hadn't done anything of note post-1976, then I would definitely rank Yakushev above Petrov. But IMO Petrov really went by him in 1977-81, when he had a few terrific seasons and Yakushev was already past his prime.

 

[VMBM]

For me, the top 3 will be Petrov, Pospisil and Suchy - in that order. Or I might still swap Suchy and Pospisil.

Ooops, what the hell am I talking about? It's Krutov, Petrov, and Pospisil - or Suchy - or Yakushev. Damn.

 

[Theokritos]

Fair enough, but why such hand-picked data? Yes, I'd have to agree that Yakushev's peak was pretty impressive (if you also think about his two all-star berths at the WHCs plus Summit Series performances), but it's not like those other Soviet players necessarily peaked at the same time (or they had peak also outside those years too) - except for Kharlamov.

If both Yakushev and Petrov hadn't done anything of note post-1976, then I would definitely rank Yakushev above Petrov. But IMO Petrov really went by him in 1977-81, when he had a few terrific seasons and Yakushev was already past his prime.

I should have elaborated. Here we go: it's often pointed out that Yakushev was rated much higher in North America than he was in Russia. However, the voting finishes I posted show that at least during his prime he was actually rated very high in the Soviet Union too, arguably second to none of the forwards other than Kharlamov.

I'm not trying to suggest he deserves to rank over Petrov here, sorry if my post looked like I do.

 

[Theokritos]

Continuing on the Krutov discussion from last thread.
(...)

Thanks for this contribution.

Another point towards the Krutov debate (which IMO cannot be avoided): Let's for a moment assume he did use PEDs back in the Soviet Union (not certain, but possible): how does that actually explain his decline from 1988-89 to 1989-90? I'm not an expert, but the point in taking steroids is to accelerate the growth of muscles, right? Now if you use them for years and then stop taking them but still work out like before, you don't go from muscleman to out-of-shape over the course of three months, do you? You might not be as strong as before, so one would expect Krutov to be weaker and probably a disappointment in the NHL and a bigger one at that than e.g. Makarov (that's the way Makarov was seen in 1989-90) – but would one expect him to not even be a NHL calibre player? The notion strikes me as unlikely. We know that Krutov did not work out over the summer of 1989 for the first time in his career – wouldn't that have done him in physically with certainty, regardless of whether he used PEDs before or not? If so then we must say that it was the lack of training regime in Moscow from July-September 1989 (followed up by a continuing lack of training regime in North America from September 1989 on) that was the cause of Krutov's rapid decline. The PEDs (provided he had used them) would be secondary.

 

[sr edler]

Yeah, if he skipped his usual training, that would probably do a lot to go along with that newly lost discipline. Not a good combo.

The guy seems like the perfect example of a player who, discipline wise, was a product of a tight environment. Without Tikhonov there to hound him out of the comfort zone he became depressed and fell in love with fast food and the lazy life.

 

[Batis]

Yeah, if he skipped his usual training, that would probably do a lot to go along with that newly lost discipline. Not a good combo.

The guy seems like the perfect example of a player who, discipline wise, was a product of a tight environment. Without Tikhonov there to hound him out of the comfort zone he became depressed and fell in love with fast food and the lazy life.

Yes that is one way of looking at it. Another way is that perhaps Krutov simply was tired of working out after having spent his entire hockey career and most of his life under arguably the toughest training regime in sports history. In an interview with Dagens Nyheter Krutov states that the he was forced to go over to North America by the authorities for propaganda reasons and that he rather would have played in Europe. Considering the choices Krutov made after his NHL-stint it seems like he just wanted to enjoy playing hockey at that point, without all the pressure, after having been released from Tikhonovs training regime. To me it seems like Krutov simply was tired of all that pressure and all the hard work to be among the best in the world and just wanted to enjoy playing hockey without all of that. And after years and years of working out at the limit of what should be humanly possible can we really blame him too much for wanting that? If I personally would have had to endure the CSKA training regime for that long I am not so sure that my first choice would have been to go to the NHL and work hard to continue to try to be among the best either.

http://www.dn.se/arkiv/sport/nu-ar-krutov-bara-en-i-mangden-forre-varldsstjarnan-talar

Edit: Re- the allegations of doping. Krutov also says that he always was tested at the Olympics and the World Championships and obviously never got caught cheating. I am aware that those tests were far from perfect and no real indication that he was clean but still athletes did get caught with Anabolic Steroids in the 80´s too (most famously Ben Johnson). And honestly if I would guess I would say that the Soviet National team players probably got tested alot more during their careers than most NHL-players at that time. This is just a guess though as I have no insight in the NHL:s drug test policy during the 80´s. Note: I am not saying that the NHL-players were not clean but I do think that Krutov should get some credit for passing the drug tests that he had to give.

 

[DN28]

Surprised to see Ragulin already.

I think in this voting there is clear top 4 (Krutov, Petrov, Kasatonov, Pospisil). It´s not going to be as much difficult as last voting.

Novy is definitely good addition. I think he has a case over Suchy.

 

[DN28]

Thanks for this contribution.

Another point towards the Krutov debate (which IMO cannot be avoided): Let's for a moment assume he did use PEDs back in the Soviet Union (not certain, but possible): how does that actually explain his decline from 1988-89 to 1989-90? I'm not an expert, but the point in taking steroids is to accelerate the growth of muscles, right? Now if you use them for years and then stop taking them but still work out like before, you don't go from muscleman to out-of-shape over the course of three months, do you? You might not be as strong as before, so one would expect Krutov to be weaker and probably a disappointment in the NHL and a bigger one at that than e.g. Makarov (that's the way Makarov was seen in 1989-90) – but would one expect him to not even be a NHL calibre player? The notion strikes me as unlikely. We know that Krutov did not work out over the summer of 1989 for the first time in his career – wouldn't that have done him in physically with certainty, regardless of whether he used PEDs before or not? If so then we must say that it was the lack of training regime in Moscow from July-September 1989 (followed up by a continuing lack of training regime in North America from September 1989 on) that was the cause of Krutov's rapid decline. The PEDs (provided he had used them) would be secondary.

The point of taking anabolic steroids isn´t just to accelerate the growth of muscles. That´s basically just a side effect of huge increase of testosteron hormone levels which is responsible for the things like aggression or sex drive. Benefits of this are enormous, you can train like a horse, to have several types of extreme trainings during one day, while your body is regenerating so fast that you can sleep for 4-5 hours a day, instead of 7-8 like a normal athlete (testosteron in human body is naturally created during sleep, if you inject testosteron you don´t have to sleep a lot). Due to better regeneration, stronger body and harder trainings you can get better in many areas. So if Krutov was using it he certainly developed more skills than just to be stronger and have more muscle.

"Now if you use them for years and then stop taking them but still work out like before, you don't go from muscleman to out-of-shape over the course of three months, do you?"

Of course you can and usually do. You can still train hard and be in good shape but it´s all relative - the person compares himself to his "juiced" himself, not to some objective average person, and thinks (almost always) that he´s **** now, because his strength and other skills are sharply decreasing. He can train harder actually but he still has worse results than before.

 

[Batis]

The point of taking anabolic steroids isn´t just to accelerate the growth of muscles. That´s basically just a side effect of huge increase of testosteron hormone levels which is responsible for the things like aggression or sex drive.

This is actually one of the things that makes me the most sceptic to the steroids allegations surrounding Krutov. My impression of Krutov has always been that he very rarely retaliated on the ice and that he generally was a player who kept his cool. What I am trying to say is that Krutovs behaviour on the ice during his prime does not really look like what I would expect from a player with a huge increase in his testosteron level. I mean if we would make a list of the most aggressive hockey players of the 1980´s would Vladimir Krutov even crack the top 100? Not on my list at least that is for sure.

 

[steve141]

This is actually one of the things that makes me the most sceptic to the steroids allegations surrounding Krutov. My impression of Krutov has always been that he very rarely retaliated on the ice and that he generally was a player who kept his cool. What I am trying to say is that Krutovs behaviour on the ice during his prime does not really look like what I would expect from a player with a huge increase in his testosteron level. I mean if we would make a list of the most aggressive hockey players of the 1980´s would Vladimir Krutov even crack the top 100? Not on my list at least that is for sure.

It's pretty obvious to me that the constant singeling out of Krutov as a juicer by some on this board is just a case of old fashioned xenophobia. More American athletes were caught doping in the 80s than any other country. Unlike NHL players the Russian players constantly competed in IIHF events with independent doping tests. Despite this, it's still the Russians who are accused of doping.

I have no idea who was doping or not in the 80s, but it's rediculous to single out Krutov under the assumption that he was on steroids, and everyone else wasn't.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It's pretty obvious to me that the constant singeling out of Krutov as a juicer by some on this board is just a case of old fashioned xenophobia. More American athletes were caught doping in the 80s than any other country. Unlike NHL players the Russian players constantly competed in IIHF events with independent doping tests. Despite this, it's still the Russians who are accused of doping.

I have no idea who was doping or not in the 80s, but it's rediculous to single out Krutov under the assumption that he was on steroids, and everyone else wasn't.

Xenophobia, really? In a project where everyone volunteered to research Europeans who never played in the NHL?

Krutov is "singled out"because

1) There are published allegations specific to him, and nobody else
2) His sharp decline from one of the very best players in the world to basically useless on the ice over a period of mere months is basically unprecedented, absent injuries.

 

[sr edler]

His sharp decline from one of the very best players in the world to basically useless on the ice over a period of mere months is basically unprecedented.

Players decline all the time. And Krutov's decline wasn't without obvious circumstances.

 

[Theokritos]

I don't see any xenophobia here at all. Let's gather what he know:

1) There was state-sponsored doping of top athletes in the Soviet Union.

2) It also affected hockey players, as demonstated by Larionov's open letter to Tikhonov (1988) where he says that players received "injections" at the 1982 World Championship.

3) In the same letter Larionov says the members of the Green Unit including Krutov refused those injections in 1982.

4) In his 2007 book "Gretzky to Lemieux" sports journalist Ed Willes says Larionov "intimated that Krutov had been fed steroids on a consistent basis" in the Soviet Union. When asked about this in an interview, Willes said: "I talked to two members of the Vancouver Canucks organization who were around when both players came over in 1989, and they both said one of the reasons Krutov was so bad was because he'd been cut off from his supply of steroids." Back in March 2015 one of our members e-mailed Willes to find out in which position these two members of the Vancouver Canucks organization were. His answer: "It was a member of the coaching staff."

 

[steve141]

Xenophobia, really? In a project where everyone volunteered to research Europeans who never played in the NHL?

Krutov is "singled out"because

1) There are published allegations specific to him, and nobody else
2) His sharp decline from one of the very best players in the world to basically useless on the ice over a period of mere months is basically unprecedented.

Which of these would be the most likely cause of a player going from one of the best hockey players in the world to barely being able to hold a regular spot in European tier-2 hockey in the course of one year:

* An eleged lack of steroids
* A documented alcoholism

The effects of steroids are not like uppers. The strength you gain from steroid use can linger for years, it's not something that wears off immediately.

And it's well known that the Soviet Union had a well-financed program helping their athletes beat doping testing. Here's an article from the Moscow Times that alludes to Soviet Doping culture: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/busin...t-doping-culture-linger-in-russia/490996.html

This is true. But it is also true that there are several examples of cover-ups by the American anti-doping agencies in the 80s, which have only become widely disclosed during the last decades. Acknowledging wide-spread drug use in one country but not the other is what bothers me.

I certainly don't want to call you or any other poster xenophobic. The double standard prevalent in the Western world though, is certainly.

(mod)

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Players decline all the time. And Krutov's decline wasn't without obvious circumstances.

Like I said previously, the only other explanation that makes sense to me is that he began to drink himself into oblivion.

4) In his 2007 book "Gretzky to Lemieux" sports journalist Ed Willes says Larionov "intimated that Krutov had been fed steroids on a consistent basis" in the Soviet Union. When asked about this in an interview, Willes said: "I talked to two members of the Vancouver Canucks organization who were around when both players came over in 1989, and they both said one of the reasons Krutov was so bad was because he'd been cut off from his supply of steroids." Back in March 2015 one of our members e-mailed Willes to find out in which position these two members of the Vancouver Canucks organization were. His answer: "It was a member of the coaching staff."

Yes, sorry. I should have probably mentioned the source when I first brought it up. The forum rule against libel requires a published source for any specific allegations. A previous discussion was linked to earlier, which contained the source, but it's always safer to be direct about it.

I was hoping this wouldn't be a big part of the discussion this time around, but I should have expected it after I brought it up (mostly for the benefit of third party readers who might not know why Krutov is so controversial).

 

[sr edler]

Like I said previously, the only other explanation that makes sense to me is that he began to drink himself into oblivion.

Hasn't there been enough 'investigation' around this already? I thought the common perception around here was that he couldn't handle not being hounded by Tikhonov. He couldn't handle the free stuff, all the free stuff. Not only alcohol but food and television and everything. And the cultural shock. Not everyone can handle it by themselves and manage discipline. I've seen that type of character myself. I'm a hobby psychologist.

 

[Theokritos]

"Now if you use them for years and then stop taking them but still work out like before, you don't go from muscleman to out-of-shape over the course of three months, do you?"

Of course you can and usually do. You can still train hard and be in good shape but it´s all relative - the person compares himself to his "juiced" himself, not to some objective average person, and thinks (almost always) that he´s **** now, because his strength and other skills are sharply decreasing.

Krutov's bad shape wasn't relative though. From all I've read he was not in good shape at all in North America, which would points towards a lack of training.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

if i may, two old posts by me on krutov from the wingers project:

thinking back at that time, everybody talked about the hamburgers. and i promise i'm not just suggesting this because krutov is russian, but it seems like probably the operative term isn't the fast food but the alcohol. seems like a textbook case of depression where a guy is taken out of his comfort zone, doesn't speak the language, facing hostility from teammates (that's well documented), lonely, homesick, doesn't perform to high expectations (and at first we can blame this on missing training camp and normal adjustment), but under high pressure from those expectations, probably also embarrassed about not killing it in the NHL given his reputation, everyone likes larionov more than him (and i mean everybody: reporters, fans, teammates, coaches... i was only eight years old it was as clear as day that you had the articulate fair-haired golden boy vs. the guy who looked like a cold war-era new york times caricature of a dim-witted, toothless soviet drone).

that a guy under those conditions would drink himself into oblivion doesn't seem like any more of a stretch than him being on steroids throughout the 80s, does it? not that long ago, we witnessed players as good as theo fleury and sandis ozolinsh just look completely lost on the ice, and those guys had been in the league for a decade.


i think it might seem like i'm saying all this to prop krutov, or to deny the illegal substance allegations. i'm really not. i just don't think we have anything that rises beyond innuendo here, and therefore i don't think it makes sense to take it into account... especially when we already have that precipitous decline to bring him down on its own.

EDIT: not that the steroid allegations don't also make sense; we just don't have the evidence imo.

now i certainly don't think it adds anything to his resume that he played in swedish B and C leagues, but he seems to have murdered those leagues, at least in his first two years there:

1992-93 32 Ostersunds IK Sweden-3 19 25 24 49 12
1993-94 33 Ostersunds IK Sweden-2 28 18 22 40 14
1994-95 34 Ostersunds IK Sweden-2 27 9 9 18 31
1995-96 35 Brunflo IK Sweden-3 18 7 9 16


as for his year in zurich, he scored almost exactly the same amount of points in that league as larionov and brian propp did a year later.