Soviet players in top 10 of all time- do they belong there?

[espo*]

This is my problem with you. Now you're only going with NHL accomplishments. Kharlamov was the better player. There's no doubt about it.


I understand you North Americans don't like to acknowledge Russians that haven't played in your all mighty league (and often not even then) but come on.

It's the other way around and i can't see how you've been here this long and have'nt noticed.I can count on one hand the amount of positive comments i've seen from Russian posters regarding North American players,that's not an exaggeration either!! But North American fans comlimenting Russian players? You see it in spades here,they are actually too complimentary at times given the total lack of respect for the skill level of our players they show our guys.

The reason guys like Kharlamov,Fetisov etc are not included in most North American top ten or top 20 lists is the mystery factor for the most part.Namely,how would they have done in the nhl with nhl style game calling (where physicality is not given penalties all night) the nightly nhl pro grind and not having their individual stats padded all to get go from playing on a best of Soviet Union squad like the red Army trouncing the beJesus out of inferior squads.

i don't doubt Kharlamov and a few others MAY have been top 20 players of all time but given the circumstances of the time it's hard for a lot of us to include them. That will be no such problem in todays realities and you see fans from here praise European players all the time.The same however STILL cannot be said about a lot of Euro's views about NA players ( eastern European fans and Russian fans in particular being the biggest offenders)

I don't mind you singing the praises of Russian players,just don't be untruthful that fans here don't do the same thing because they do!!.North American fans on this site are by FAR the most objective,respectful and un-biased of any group i see here on average.Almost to a fault actually, because for the most part it's not reciprocated on the other side of the pond concerning our players,at least in one particular zone of Europe anyway.

 

[Murphy]

This is my problem with you. Now you're only going with NHL accomplishments. Kharlamov was the better player. There's no doubt about it.


I understand you North Americans don't like to acknowledge Russians that haven't played in your all mighty league (and often not even then) but come on.

I don't think you'll find that much in this section. The majority of posters here, myself included would truly like to know where they rate.

You just have to come up with better arguements than "no doubt about it", "I'm certain" or "some writers said"

I'd like to add to the discussion but I really don't know. I personally don't think they played as high a level consistantly as say Beliveau or Harvey. In my opinion that inflated their stats some but at the same time I have zero idea of the level of competion at that time.

I'd like to know.

 

[Bluesfan1981]

I understand you North Americans don't like to acknowledge Russians that haven't played in your all mighty league (and often not even then) but come on.

Which is and has always been the greatest league in the world.

 

[Bluesfan1981]

I am a freelance journalist and recently I compiled a list of top 10 players ever to play a game of hockey for some hockey fans.

The list contains these players - Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Roy, Howe, P.Esposito, Sawchuk, Bourque, Beliveau, Richard. (Purposedly I don´t present the standings, because this would lead to nowhere).

AHHH where are Bobby Hull, Doug Harvey, Jacques Plante, or Eddie Shore? They're more deserving than Roy, Esposito, and certainly more deserving than Bourque.

 

[Peter25]

My top 10

1. Kharlamov
2. Gretzky
3. Mikhailov
4. Lemieux
5. Fetisov
6. Orr
7. Makarov
8. Messier
9. Firsov
10. Bourque

 

[Bluesfan1981]

My top 10

1. Kharlamov
2. Gretzky
3. Mikhailov
4. Lemieux
5. Fetisov
6. Orr
7. Makarov
8. Messier
9. Firsov
10. Bourque

Kharlamov ahead of Gretzky, Orr 6th

 

[God Bless Canada]

This is my problem with you. Now you're only going with NHL accomplishments. Kharlamov was the better player. There's no doubt about it.


I understand you North Americans don't like to acknowledge Russians that haven't played in your all mighty league (and often not even then) but come on.

The thing about Mikita is he wasn't just offence. He was "The Uncheckable Czech" and one of the pioneers of the curved blade. (According to the Legends of Hockey series that ran on TSN about a decade ago, Mikita discovered it by accident while fooling around with a damaged stick one day after practice). He had a great shot and great playmaking ability. But he was far from one-dimensional: he was a physical force and tough as nails. As I stated before, you could make a case for Mikita as the No. 4 centre ever, and one of the top 10 players ever.

 

[Zine]

Which is and has always been the greatest league in the world.

I think its a myth that the NHL was superior to the Soviet league back then - even depth wise. (Soviet league only had 12 teams most years)

Probably the best way to guage the different levels of play would be to study the super series (between '76-'91).

The Soviets won the super series by a large margain (55-33-10). Even when you take the stacked Red Army and Dynamo teams out of the equasion - the Soviets still come out ahead 21-19-4. Its also important to note that the VAST majority of these games were played in North America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Series

 

[Plato]

dont know mcuh about them but if they were good enough they should be in

 

[God Bless Canada]

I think its a myth that the NHL was superior to the Soviet league back then - even depth wise. (Soviet league only had 12 teams most years)

Probably the best way to guage the different levels of play would be to study the super series (between '76-'91).

The Soviets won the super series by a large margain (55-33-10). Even when you take the stacked Red Army and Dynamo teams out of the equasion - the Soviets still come out ahead 21-19-4. Its also important to note that the VAST majority of these games were played in North America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Series

The Super Series? You mean those exhibition games that were played on North American soil? At first, they were great. For the first few years. The 1975 New Year's Eve game between Red Army and the Habs is the greatest game I've ever seen. A hockey clinic. (And for those who don't think Tretiak belongs in the top 10 ever, I use that game as evidence). The Soviet team also had legendary games versus Philly and Boston that year.

But eventually, they meant nothing. To the NHL teams, it was a novelty experience: they got to play against some of these Soviet greats (Makarov, Larionov, Fetisov), but did the games mean anything to the NHLers? No. Not in the 80s, anyways. (And it wasn't just exhibition games versus the Soviets that lost meaning. It's also the all-star game, and many regular season games were lacking in intensity. Many regular season games still lack intensity). The 79 Challenge Series meant something. Rendezvous 87 was irrelevant.

 

[God Bless Canada]

THN in 02 did a russian top 10:

Thanks for the list, nik. Obviously, we all have our criteria for who should be where. The top 3 is bang-on. Agree whole-heartedly. Fetisov, the deadly all-round defender; Tretiak, the stellar goaltender; and Kharlamov, the slick waterbug offensive dynamo. But to me, a list of the top Soviet players ever is incomplete without Mikhailov and Larionov. Bure ahead of Mikhailov? Never. I wouldn't put Bure in a list of the top 20 Soviet/Russian players. Fedorov ahead of Larionov? Not to me. But that's because I also factor Larionov's class into the equation. He may not be one of the top 10 players ever, but Larionov would be in my top 10 class acts ever. It's sad that he never won a Masterton: few have ever exemplified "perseverence, sportsmanship and dedication to the game" like Igor Larionov.

As for the Rocket Richard quote about Bobrov: let's keep in mind a lot of players have come and gone since then. At that time, guys like Howie Morenz, Ted Lindsay, Syl Apps, Milt Schmidt and Charlie Conacher would have probably shown up in a top 10 list or two, and Lindsay and Morenz would have been shoo-ins. Now, only Morenz would have a shot at appearing in a top 10, and very few would list him as such. (There are players who have remained fixtures in top 10s over the last 50 years: Richard, Shore and Howe).

 

[Zine]

The Super Series? You mean those exhibition games that were played on North American soil? At first, they were great. For the first few years. The 1975 New Year's Eve game between Red Army and the Habs is the greatest game I've ever seen. A hockey clinic. (And for those who don't think Tretiak belongs in the top 10 ever, I use that game as evidence). The Soviet team also had legendary games versus Philly and Boston that year.

But eventually, they meant nothing. To the NHL teams, it was a novelty experience: they got to play against some of these Soviet greats (Makarov, Larionov, Fetisov), but did the games mean anything to the NHLers? No. Not in the 80s, anyways. (And it wasn't just exhibition games versus the Soviets that lost meaning. It's also the all-star game, and many regular season games were lacking in intensity. Many regular season games still lack intensity). The 79 Challenge Series meant something. Rendezvous 87 was irrelevant.

I certainly agree that the series lost some intensity as time went on.....however, I don't agree that it meant nothing to NHLrs. The cold war was still 'on' in the 80's and players most certainly would have wanted to give a good showing.

Off course, these games weren't live and die situations anymore but I'd bet that NHLrs had more jump in their step for a Soviet game than a mid-season game in Winnipeg.

 

[VanIslander]

Mikita was Canadian for all practical purposes, no less so than that great Croat Joe Sakic (Joe didn't speak English until he entered kindergarten).

I am one who thinks we at HFBoards are often like the Canadian players were before the seventies: arrogant at our superiority. Then suddenly the seventies and eighties hit and the Soviets AND Czechoslovakians showed their stuff against our very best, and all talk of the NHL as better stopped! Until the nineties, when there became no barriers to the best players in the world coming to play in the best league. I have NO DOUBT that at least a dozen or more of the Top-50 hockey players of all time never made it over the Atlantic. The issue here is epistemological: How do we know who would have thrived? How to compare? It's an intractable problem.

 

[Zine]

My top 10:

1. Gretzky
2. Orr
3. Bobrov
4. Lemieux
5. Howe
6. Firsov
7. Harvey
8. Kharlamov
9. Hull
10. Beliveau

 

[Ogopogo*]

I am a freelance journalist and recently I compiled a list of top 10 players ever to play a game of hockey for some hockey fans.

The list contains these players - Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Roy, Howe, P.Esposito, Sawchuk, Bourque, Beliveau, Richard. (Purposedly I don´t present the standings, because this would lead to nowhere).

But I was confronted with idea that the list of Top 10 should contain players from Soviet Union like Tretjak, Kharlamov, Makarov, Fetisov or Larionov.

Do you believe any of Soviet players is eligible to crack the Top 10 of all-time?

It is impossible to compare them against NHLers because they played only a handful of games against NHL-calibre competition. Their status was earned by beating AHL-calibre players and in a stacked Russian league. Really, there is no method of comparison and it is best to leave them in a different category. IMO, no Russian would be in the top 10 anyway.

 

[member 30781]

I say it goes like this.
1. Orr
2. Gretzky
3. Lemeuix
4. Kharlomov
5. Patrick Roy
6. Tretiak
7. Howe
8. Bourgue
9. Larionov
10. Kurri

 

[Impossibles]

imo, you can't judge players against each other that played in different leagues because they never played against the same talent.

It's like the negro leagues and MLB in baseball. You don't know how the top players in the negro leagues would have faired against MLB players, and you don't know how the MLB players would have faired with negro league talent in the league.

You can just argue the top MLB players and top negro league players, but you can't mix them.

Another anology would be who was better: Michael Jordan or Wayne Gretzky?

That's just my two cents.

 

[God Bless Canada]

imo, you can't judge players against each other that played in different leagues because they never played against the same talent.

It's like the negro leagues and MLB in baseball. You don't know how the top players in the negro leagues would have faired against MLB players, and you don't know how the MLB players would have faired with negro league talent in the league.

You can just argue the top MLB players and top negro league players, but you can't mix them.

Another anology would be who was better: Michael Jordan or Wayne Gretzky?

That's just my two cents.

Your first point had some merit. Your last question did not. We're talking about comparing athletes from different leagues, not different sports.

You do raise a good point (which was mentioned earlier), and that deals with situations. Would a player from the Soviet Union succeeded in the NHL in the 1970s. How would he handle the 70-80-game schedule, the smaller ice surface, the language barrier, the physical play, and the political climate? Would Kharlamov have been as dominant in the NHL over a 78-game schedule in 72-73 as he was in the Soviet Union, in the World Championships and in the 72 Summit Series.

In the same breath, how would an NHL player have fared playing in the Soviet Union? How would he have played on a larger ice surface, with less physical play, the language barrier and the political climate. In the NHL in the 70s, you coasted through the summer, showed up to camp and played your way into shape by the time November rolled around. (Keep in mind training camp and the pre-season were longer back then). And, of course, the Soviets were quicker. Yvon Cournoyer was the second-best skater in the league in 72, behind only Orr. (And some will tell you that Cournoyer was better as far as straight-out speed). But the Soviets in 72 had several players just as fast as Cournoyer.

As we've seen before, some supremely talented European stars have flopped in North America. We haven't had a legitimate sampling of North American stars in Europe. (Yes, some NA-born players went to Europe during the lockout, but you could tell many of them were over there for the paycheck, and performance meant little to them. You know the North American performance in Europe during the lockout is irrelevant when you consider that Brendan Morrison was one of the best in the SEL in 2004-05).

I'm confident that the Kharlamov's and Mikhailov's would have been elite players who would have garnered points on the Ogopogo system. I don't think Kharlamov supplants Hull and Lindsay for the top two LW spots in the history of the sport, but I think he could have been the NHL's LW of the decade in the 70s. (Keep in mind that Bobby Hull and Frank Mahovlich were already in their late 30s and spent much of the decade in the WHA).

 

[kruezer]

Your first point had some merit. Your last question did not. We're talking about comparing athletes from different leagues, not different sports.

You do raise a good point (which was mentioned earlier), and that deals with situations. Would a player from the Soviet Union succeeded in the NHL in the 1970s. How would he handle the 70-80-game schedule, the smaller ice surface, the language barrier, the physical play, and the political climate? Would Kharlamov have been as dominant in the NHL over a 78-game schedule in 72-73 as he was in the Soviet Union, in the World Championships and in the 72 Summit Series.

In the same breath, how would an NHL player have fared playing in the Soviet Union? How would he have played on a larger ice surface, with less physical play, the language barrier and the political climate. In the NHL in the 70s, you coasted through the summer, showed up to camp and played your way into shape by the time November rolled around. (Keep in mind training camp and the pre-season were longer back then). And, of course, the Soviets were quicker. Yvon Cournoyer was the second-best skater in the league in 72, behind only Orr. (And some will tell you that Cournoyer was better as far as straight-out speed). But the Soviets in 72 had several players just as fast as Cournoyer.

As we've seen before, some supremely talented European stars have flopped in North America. We haven't had a legitimate sampling of North American stars in Europe. (Yes, some NA-born players went to Europe during the lockout, but you could tell many of them were over there for the paycheck, and performance meant little to them. You know the North American performance in Europe during the lockout is irrelevant when you consider that Brendan Morrison was one of the best in the SEL in 2004-05).

I'm confident that the Kharlamov's and Mikhailov's would have been elite players who would have garnered points on the Ogopogo system. I don't think Kharlamov supplants Hull and Lindsay for the top two LW spots in the history of the sport, but I think he could have been the NHL's LW of the decade in the 70s. (Keep in mind that Bobby Hull and Frank Mahovlich were already in their late 30s and spent much of the decade in the WHA).

I don't think I agree with the first points you raise GBC, it strikes me as being irrelevant in the comparison of talent, if you are comparing players based on their NHL careers then yes, all the questions you as make sense, but that is an impossible exercise.

If, however, you are comparing players based on their talent at the game, then it makes sense to make an attempt to compare the two groups, but you fall into the trap of the crossover points between the leagues being too few and far between.

Just an opinion, but I think Kharlamov could have displaced Lindsay just based on talent, though he wouldn't have caught Hull, though Fetisov makes the most sense for having a chance at an all time top ten I think, I don't think it would have been out of the question for him to be better than Bourque, that leaves him competing with Harvey and Shore, who are very difficult for him to compare with.

Anyway, another point I think should be taken into account, is that Russian hockey has not existed as long as NA hockey and therefore there will have been more top end NA players than Russian's, just because of the total number of players.

 

[Marcus-74]

I would certainly consider players like Kharlamov, Fetisov and Makarov in the top 10 of all-time.

Of those players, Makarov was the most complete package IMO, and I don´t think there ever was a guy who was more difficult to handle 1-on-1 (Lemieux, maybe?). He didn´t have much weaknesses, basically.

Kharlamov is of course legendary and unique in the way his feet and hands worked together... in a different rhythm! I believe that guys like Bobby Hull and Serge Savard, for instance, consider him to be one of the very best of all-time.

And I prefer Fetisov over the Canadian defensemen like Bourque and Potvin. Feti would have been the top d-man in the NHL in the ´80s, I truly believe it.

 

[Fighter]

I have Kharlamov at 3# in my top 10, Tretiak is a part of it as well: those two are the two Soviet players who deserve absolutely to be there.

 

[Wisent]

THN in 02 did a russian top 10:

Thanks fo rthe list.
But I have to say that (as the writer himself said) that these lists create controversy.
Bure is IMO too high on that list while Mikhailov is way too low. And the list omits at least one important name with Starshinov.

And, while I agree that he is great, Tretyak is too high on this list. I wouldn`t have him in the Top5.

But, as always, lists are hard to make.

 

[XploD]

Which is and has always been the greatest league in the world.

Of course, but the best Soviets at the time were more than capable of making NHL defensemen look like fools. Just because they weren't allowed to play in the best league in the world doesn't make them worse hockey players.

You do raise a good point (which was mentioned earlier), and that deals with situations. Would a player from the Soviet Union succeeded in the NHL in the 1970s. How would he handle the 70-80-game schedule, the smaller ice surface, the language barrier, the physical play, and the political climate? Would Kharlamov have been as dominant in the NHL over a 78-game schedule in 72-73 as he was in the Soviet Union, in the World Championships and in the 72 Summit Series.

I think they would have handled the schedule pretty well as the Soviet's national team at the time arguably were the best trained athletes in the world.

 

[canucksfan]

There isn't one Soviet player that would crack the top ten all time. It's hard to compare the Soviet players to the NHL players. Whether it's good or bad, the games the Soviets played against Canada are the best way to compare them. The World Championships the Soviets won aren't worth a whole lot. Was Kharlamov the best player in the Summit Series? Did the Soviet players really dominate enough that they should be considered top ten all time?

Fetisov was a great defencemen. However, he wouldn't crack the top five of best defencemen of all time. Orr, Shore, Harvey, Bourque and Potvin were better than him.

An interesting point was raised also. If the Soviets player played in the NHL in the 70's how well would they have done.

 

[jamiebez]

I think its a myth that the NHL was superior to the Soviet league back then - even depth wise. (Soviet league only had 12 teams most years)

Probably the best way to guage the different levels of play would be to study the super series (between '76-'91).

The Soviets won the super series by a large margain (55-33-10). Even when you take the stacked Red Army and Dynamo teams out of the equasion - the Soviets still come out ahead 21-19-4. Its also important to note that the VAST majority of these games were played in North America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Series

Two related things spring to mind when you're talking about this era:

1. The WHA was in play for a lot of these series, and that let to a huge fracturing of the talent base in North America.

2. There was no parity in the NHL in the 1970s and early 80s. You had the Habs, Bruins, Flyers and Isles as dominant teams in the 1970s, and the Oilers, Isles, and Flames (Flyers & Bruins somewhat, too) as the 1980s powerhouses. There was a huge seperation in talent between those top 3-5 teams and the rest of the league.

What I'm getting at here is that these games were seldom a "best-on-best" affair. You had the top 3 or 4 Russian club teams (in 1983, it was the national USSR team) playing weaker NHL teams because, for the most part, 80% of the NHL could be considered a "weak" team.