"The match that didn't take place": Canadian coaches grade Soviets vs NHL (1968)

[Theokritos]

The following is sourced from Anatoly Tarasov's book Хоккей грядущего (2nd edition, 1971). Tarasov says that "four years ago" a Czechoslovak sports journalist named Ladislav Krnáč had asked "the two renowned Canadian coaches [David] Bauer and [Jackie] McLeod" to grade the quality of the Soviet national team in comparison with the strongest and the weakest NHL teams, Chicago Black Hawks (top team in the regular season) and Boston Bruins (bottom dweller). Here's the full breakdown as quoted by Tarasov:

Physical preparation
McLeod: "The Soviet players have a more well-rounded training, especially when it comes to strength. Boston 3 points, USSR 5 points."
Bauer: "The advantage of the Soviet team is that it pays special attention to training in the off-season, the players are involved in hockey all-year round. Chicago 3.5 points, USSR 5 points."

Skating
McLeod: "The average level of the professionals is higher. Bobby Orr, for example, has an incredible acceleration. [Veniamin] Aleksandrov skates more elegantly. Boston 5 points, USSR 3 points."
Bauer: "The Soviet players are stronger on their skates, but personally I would put Bobby Hull at the top. The players of the Canadian national team who appear in Grenoble are stronger on their skates than the third line of Chicago. Thus, Chicago 4 points, USSR 4 points."

Puck control
McLeod (without hesitation): "They're on par. Esposito and Firsov are exemplary. Boston 4 points, USSR 4 points."
Bauer (after much deliberation): "The two teams play different styles. For the professionals the main principle is to shoot, hammer the puck ahead and put pressure on the goaltender. The Soviet team focuses on buildup and puck possession. Both are good at what they're doing. I don't acknowledge the notion that the Soviets play a mechanical game. Only the Montreal Canadiens are able to combine those two styles. Chicago 4 points, USSR 4.5 points."

Shooting
McLeod: "The professionals shoot more often, harder and more accurate. Boston 5 points, USSR 2 points."
Bauer: "The NHL has 15 players who are fantastic shooters, but that's all. Two years ago I would have said Chicago 5 points, USSR 2 points, today I say Chicago 5 points, USSR 3.5 points."

Passing
McLeod: "The professionals pass less often but they're effective. The Soviet players pass around a lot. Almetov and Starshinov are true kings of the pass. Boston 4 points, USSR 4 points."
Bauer: "The Soviet players can pass in many ways and they're more accurate. The professionals often give the puck away because they often take risks. Chicago 4.5 points, USSR 5 points."

Physical game
McLeod: "The professionals are more experienced in this, the only thing the Soviets do better is their pressing. Ragulin has ideal qualities for the physical game. Boston 5 points, USSR 3 points."
Bauer: "True, among the Soviet players are a few who don't like the game with the body. That's not the case among the professionals. Nevertheless, Chicago 4.5 points, USSR 4.5 points."

Goaltending
McLeod: "No contest. Boston 5 points, USSR 3 points."
Bauer: "All professional goaltenders are great players. Chicago 5 points, USSR 3.5 points."

Power play
McLeod: "The Soviets excell in choice of position and passing. Boston 3 points, USSR 4 points."
Bauer: "I don't see a difference. Both still have room to improve. Chicago 3.5 points, USSR 3.5 points."

Penalty killing
McLeod: "The NHL has more players proficient in holding the puck. The Soviets defend more actively. Boston 3 points, USSR 3 points."
Bauer: "It all comes down to luck. Chicago 3.5 points, USSR 3.5 points."

Defensive play
McLeod: "The pros have great goalies. The forwards don't help the defencemen as much. In general, the NHL teams defend better. Boston 4 points, USSR 3 points."
Bauer: "I'm not taking goaltenders into account. The pros get paid for goals, therefore Chicago, for example, can't win the cup. The Soviet team defends more as a collective. Chicago 4 points, USSR 5 points."

Offensive play
McLeod: "Hard to answer. The pros shoot more often, but the Soviet players are better at creating shooting positions for each other. It all depends on the defencemen and the goalkeeper. Boston 4 points, USSR 3 points."
Bauer: "I've expressed my opinion on this one before. Hull and Mikita are superstars. Chicago 5 points, USSR 3.5 points."

Overall play
McLeod: "I think the game of the pros is more efficient. The Soviet team is well organized. In addition it's getting stronger from year to year. There are more and more players of the type of Almetov, Firsov and Polupanov. If we take this into account I would go with a draw. Both sides contribute to the world of hockey. Boston 4 points, USSR 4 points."
Bauer: "Each has their own qualities. It would be difficult for the players to play on the team of the opponent. In my opinion the only Soviet players who wouldn't be at loss [when switching to an NHL team] would be Firsov and Starshinov. Chicago 5 points, USSR 5 points."

Click to read more...

 

[MXD]

Bauer: "I'm not taking goaltenders into account. The pros get paid for goals, therefore Chicago, for example, can't win the cup. The Soviet team defends more as a collective. Chicago 4 points, USSR 5 points."

Wow....

 

[Zine]

I think this reinforces what many of us have speculated....most of our mid-late 60s national team members were NHL level, at least in terms of talent. Albeit I believe only Firsov and Ragulin would have been 'all-stars'.

 

[DyerMaker66*]

Wow....

Wish coaches still thought that way.

 

[mcauliffe]

This runs somewhat against the belief that every Canadians thought the Soviets couldn't skate with the pros back then. Makes me kind of happy that some insiders were able to avoid chauvinistic instincts and give some credit to the Soviet style of hockey before the Summit Series.

 

[Rhiessan71]

This runs somewhat against the belief that every Canadians thought the Soviets couldn't skate with the pros back then. Makes me kind of happy that some insiders were able to avoid chauvinistic instincts and give some credit to the Soviet style of hockey before the Summit Series.

I don't think skating was ever questioned.
The questions about the Russians were always revolved around goaltending and whether they could stand up to NHL level physicality.

'72 went a long way towards showing that their goaltending was improved and that they could at least stand up to the NHL physical play for the most part, if not return it in kind except for a couple of layers.

BUT one can never forget that '72 would've been a whole different story with Hull and especially Orr.
Not to say that the Russians wouldn't have still proven themselves capable of competing with NHL players, that would've happened regardless but Henderson isn't in the HHoF today because his heroics wouldn't have been needed.

 

[Zine]

I don't think skating was ever questioned.
The questions about the Russians were always revolved around goaltending and whether they could stand up to NHL level physicality.

'72 went a long way towards showing that their goaltending was improved and that they could at least stand up to the NHL physical play for the most part, if not return it in kind except for a couple of layers.

BUT one can never forget that '72 would've been a whole different story with Hull and especially Orr.
Not to say that the Russians wouldn't have still proven themselves capable of competing with NHL players, that would've happened regardless but Henderson isn't in the HHoF today because his heroics wouldn't have been needed.

I'm not so sure.

Obviously Canada was missing Orr/Hull and were guilty of taking Soviets lightly. But the Soviets were missing Firsov and, for the deciding games, Kharlamov. Plus, unlike the NHLers, the Soviets were totally ill-prepared for a long drawn-out stanley cup like series. In addition there was a lot of incohesion between the players and new coach Bobrov (so much that Firsov claimed he refused to play for Bobrov). We were hardly the 'well oiled machine' that everybody likes to think.

I think the end result was a good representation of where both countries were circa '72.......Canada was ever so slightly better.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I'm not so sure.

Obviously Canada was missing Orr/Hull and were guilty of taking Soviets lightly. But the Soviets were missing Firsov and, for the deciding games, Kharlamov. Plus, unlike the NHLers, the Soviets were totally ill-prepared for a long drawn-out stanley cup like series. In addition there was a lot of incohesion between the players and new coach Bobrov (so much that Firsov claimed he refused to play for Bobrov). We were hardly the 'well oiled machine' that everybody likes to think.

I think the end result was a good representation of where both countries were circa '72.......Canada was ever so slightly better.

If one wants to more or less cancel Hull for Firsov, I wouldn't push the point too hard BUT missing Orr, the greatest player in the World at that time by a large margin, yeah...that's bigger than the Russians missing both Firsov and Kharlamov.

Orr would have changed the entire tournament, especially early on when Canada was still getting their act together.
Not having Orr worked out for the best IMO because if Canada hadn't had the crap scared out of them and forced them to adjust, evolve and overcome, it would have been even worse for Canada later that decade.

 

[creg78*]

I would honestly give my left nut to of seen ORR in that series (even though I was 1 year old at the time..).


I honestly think the Canadians picked a sub par roster for that tourny anyways and still won, I'd think Keon or the Pocket Rocket(he may of been too old though) would of done very well against the soviets.



Either way despite Canadian arrogance(I can admit it is apart of our hockey culture ) The soviets were likely just as arrogant considering their success internationally up until that point, given they had their own professional league for the red army I wonder why they couldn't produce a substantially better team then us given their population advantage ?

 

[VMBM]

Passing
McLeod: "The professionals pass less often but they're effective. The Soviet players pass around a lot. Almetov and Starshinov are true kings of the pass. Boston 4 points, USSR 4 points."
Bauer: "The Soviet players can pass in many ways and they're more accurate. The professionals often give the puck away because they often take risks. Chicago 4.5 points, USSR 5 points."

The most interesting and surprising (though not totally) passage for me. It has been almost unanimously decided on the history board that "Starshinov was an awful playmaker" or something like that, based e.g. on the scrappy assist data from the 1960s. Almetov's assist numbers weren't much more impressive either, and yet McLeod mentions him too. Not that passing and playmaking are exactly the same thing, but still there might be a slight re-evaluation in order. For the record, I was never all that convinced about Starshinov being a poor playmaker.

All in all, lots of appreciation for Starshinov; of course one has to remember that this was slightly before the breakthrough of Kharlamov, Mikhailov, Maltsev, Petrov etc...

This info makes it even more funny that the Canadians were so ill-prepared in 1972. But there were also players on 1972 Team Canada that had faced the Soviets and arguably knew that it wasn't going to be a cake-walk, and even they weren't listened to (apparently) or taken seriously, so...

 

[VMBM]

If one wants to more or less cancel Hull for Firsov, I wouldn't push the point too hard BUT missing Orr, the greatest player in the World at that time by a large margin, yeah...that's bigger than the Russians missing both Firsov and Kharlamov.

That's your opinion, and you can keep it!

Firstly, Canada had the better depth (yes, even in 1972), and so Team USSR was hurt more when missing those superstars from the deciding games IMO.

And in any case, how can you tell for sure? We know that Kharlamov played so well in 1972 that the Canadians felt that they needed to get rid of him. We don't know about Orr, although it's hard to imagine that he would've been a huge disappointment a la Frank Mahovlich. Still, he might not have been nearly at his best, like so many others, and one player can do only so much in any case. Firsov certainly would have been a bit of a 'wild card' in the fall of 1972, but only a few months earlier he had still been a very important part of the Soviet team in the 1972 Olympics (especially regarding defensive play and playmaking).

 

[Theokritos]

This info makes it even more funny that the Canadians were so ill-prepared in 1972. But there were also players on 1972 Team Canada that had faced the Soviets and arguably knew that it wasn't going to be a cake-walk, and even they weren't listened to (apparently) or taken seriously, so...

I guess the idea of an NHL all-star team (instead of individual clubs) facing the Soviets was a game-changer for some observers. Guess who predicted "total domination" by Team Canada in 1972? No other than David Bauer!

 

[MXD]

There's a thing I don't understand though...
McLeod rates a bottom-dweller. Bauer rates a top-team.
I wouldn't necessarily think so reading their comments.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Championship Teams

^^^ Still no one compared the Soviets to SC Championship teams from the era - Montreal and Toronto. Montreal with talent, depth and speed. Toronto with the experience, depth and discipline.

 

[mcauliffe]

I don't think skating was ever questioned.

I didn't mean literally.

It remains true that the vast majority of pundits predicted a cakewalk for Canada. In the francophone media, as far as I know only Michel Blanchard from La Presse correctly predicted the outcome. Unfortunately, that led him to a)remain an unapologetic contrarian for the remainder of his career and b) to wildly overestimate russian players from then on. That led him to write some awfully stupid stuff later on (e.g. Malakhov, best Habs defenceman since Doug Harvey.)