Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
Oduya, despite his best efforts, yes...Hammer was the lock down man of record. Keith was a little messy defensively early in his career...
Oduya, despite his best efforts, yes...Hammer was the lock down man of record. Keith was a little messy defensively early in his career...
He was such a rock for them. Seabrook and Keith got all the attention, and for the most party they earned it, but he's the type of player that multiple-cup winners have.The Hawks really miss Hjalmarsson and when he got traded, the downfall for the Hawks started.
I feel like he didn't bother working on his shot. He worked a ton on his skating and you can see the improvements from one year to the next. His awareness was always great. The shot was always lacking though.Similar thing happened with Hedman. He never got 1st PP time because we always tried to force a RHS on the top PP to feed Stamkos. He gets top PP time, suddenly he's a lock for 60+ points a year.
One thing that holds Keith back *a bit*, is he's a pretty bad goalscorer. He has 3 seasons with double-digit goals total, with 14, 12, and 10 being his highest. It's not a huge knock in my book - he's a great puck mover and a great skater, but he really has a muffin shot.
Firsov is the topic of discussion but it matters for all Soviet League players from start to finish of the SPOTY.
1972 Summit Series. Firsov LW/C generously would have been a third probably fourth liner.
It wasn't brought up in the cases of the Soviet players voted in so far, was it?
Soviet Best Player voting suggests Firsov was widely considered the second best center behind Maltsev in the season just prior to the Summit Series, ahead of Petrov and Shadrin. And if even a way-past-prime Starshinov got the opportunity to play on a top line (with Kharlamov and Maltsev in Game 2 of the Summit Series), then Firsov would have gotten the same.
But regardless where he would have played, your claim was that Firsov was left out because he didn't impress against Canadian players in 1969. The reality is that Firsov's omission was not based on athletic merit at all. He was dropped from the national team after a successful performance at the 1972 Olympics, even before the 1972 World Championship, not just before the Summit.
But was Firsov really left out of the 1972 Summit squad in the first place? Various NA newspapers mentioned that he was named to the squad and different reasons are given as to why he didn't play. So what was going on there? From what Firsov himself has stated later on, his dispute with Bobrov prompted him to decline the chance to play. It appears the Soviets were hoping until the beginning of the Moscow leg that he would change his mind. They didn't have any reason to think he wouldn't be good enough, that claim really doesn't hold any water.
What remains as the case against Firsov is that he didn't prove himself against NHL calibre Canadians. That claim is true and any reasonable downranking of Firsov has to be based on it. I won't dispute that it is a valid argument that can be made.
The counter argument is that Firsov is close enough chronologically to Kharlamov and other players we ho did proof themselves against Team Canada 1972 etc. In some cases the primes even overlap. Firsov's prime lasted until 1971, Kharlamov's arguably started in 1969.
It will be up to the individual voters to decide how much weight each of the two factors (lack of resume against NHL opponents, overlap with Kharlamov & Co) carries.
1969 was the only chance Firsov and other 1972 Summit Series Soviet players had to face Canadian pros or future pros under the new 1969 IIHF rules. Firsov did not impress, neither did the Soviets on the Canadian tour, going 4-4, including a 9-3 loss, in their final gameagainst a Junior Canadiens Alumni team.
1970 to 1972 Canada did not participate in the WHC or Olympic Ice Hockey events so like other Soviet players, Firsov did not face Canada. Firsov may have looked good against other nations but appearantly not good enough to sway Soviet decision makers.
Bottom line is that you now admit ther are newspaper reports that it was Firsov's choice not to play in 1972 against Canada in the Summit Series.
No athletic merit? You just posted the athletic merit argument I was suggesting.
Starshinov got a chance in game 2 between Kharlamov and Maltsev. Non-factor in a Soviet loss on an NHL sized rink.
You now admit that the Soviets were hoping until the start of the Moscow leg that Firsov might play. The bigger International sized rink would favour Firsov. Sems that the Soviet clearly recognized that Firsov would have difficulties with forechecking on the smaller rink.
Rink size is never mentioned in such stories since the reporters respected the readers knowledge.
No reason to mention that the Montreal Forum was a standard NHL rink or that the Moscow venue was a standard International rink.
Regardless, Firsov chose not to participate. His actions speak louder than your words.
Firsov is the topic of discussion but it matters for all Soviet League players from start to finish of the SPOTY.
1972 Summit Series. Firsov LW/C generously would have been a third probably fourth liner.
Keith also didn't match up against the opponent's top line. Not a shutdown guy.
That style of defenseman is always undervalued. give me Hjalmarsson, Ohlund, Foote, Daneyko, Ryan Suter, Desjardins.... keep your highlight reel hits, booming slappers and out of position hits.The Hawks really miss Hjalmarsson and when he got traded, the downfall for the Hawks started.
Keith was a little messy defensively early in his career...
I know that Phil and Clarke won the Hart but seriously no one ever thought they were better players than Orr from the 71-75 time period you mention.
contemporary account of Orr said:While Orr's quality is undeniable, his indispensability is not. With Orr in the Bruins’ line‐up, abetted by the prolific Phil Esposito, Boston failed to win the Stanley Cup in 1973, 1974 and 1975. Orr has conned experts with his scoring leadership. In fact, as defenseman he is, at best, just average.
“Even with Orr,” says the Montreal Gazette's respected hockey analyst, Al Strachan, “the Bruins’ style has not been that successful. It does no good to blast the lowly teams out of the arena if you lose the close games to the good teams. Last year, the Bruins outscored their opponents by 100 goals, but won only 40 of 80 games.”
During the 1974‐75 season, while Orr played in 80 games, he could not even lift the Bruins past the five‐year‐old Buffalo Sabres. He was virtually impotent as the Bruins were wiped out of the playoffs in three games by the militantly mediocre. Chicago Black Hawks.
Fred Shero, the Philadelphia coach, has said that Orr's style would disquallfy him for the Flyers. Orr is too much the individualist, too little the team player.
The Hawks really miss Hjalmarsson and when he got traded, the downfall for the Hawks started.
You should give the author of the "contemporary account" a name. It's Stan Fischler.
You should give the author of the "contemporary account" a name. It's Stan Fischler.
... yeah, I don't exactly know what this one was expecting to achieve by intentionally leaving out the name of the writer.
Contemporary accounts have been emphasized in the project. I provided one that includes opinions from a head coach and two long time sports writers.
If it is disregarded, this surprises me not at all.
I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and think he didn't know Stan Fischler has zero credibility on this subforum, in part, but not limited to, his massive hate-on for Bobby Orr.
But it's tough when Fischler is presented as generic "contemporary observer."
I have him ahead of Frank Mahovlich in mine.Thornton made my top 100 personally...I'm not really expecting to see him though...
You're right. We should have legislated a version of employment equity and had a couple of token Russians. But then, we'd need even more Americans to reflect the current NHL.No russians in the top 10? loool what joke of a list. People here think that canadians are the only ones who know how to play hockey.