Why did the USSR catch up Canada so fast?

[McGuillicuddy]

So is this what the NHL wanted from this "Series of a Century"? If not, what was the purpose? Just to joke around and show some skillzz?

What the NHL wanted and what was reality are two different and not necessarily related things.

 

[seventieslord]

Nalyd basically covered the reasons pretty well already. I also think the influence and vision of Anatoli Tarasov, who was absolutely driven to make USSR the best, cannot be understated.

 

[JackSlater]

In what sense do you mean catch up? As far as the national team goes, the Soviets seem to have made a great national team a priority, while Canada just produced players to play in the NHL. If Canada had made international play a priority in the same way the Soviets did I don't think the Soviets would have won many titles even during the late 70s and early 80s period. I don't see how the Soviets ever caught up to Canada in terms of hockey as a whole.

 

[luffis]

The reason why the USSR "caught up" is simple IMO, and before ppl start bashing me I´d like to say that this a theory and may very well be wrong . The russians were insanely competitive at that time, and by that i mean, they trained like idiots for 11 months of the year while playing their 40ish games of league hockey. The players were taken away from their families to train 300-some days of the year. From what Ive read and heard the NHL stars in the 60s-mid 70s weren´t as serious about their fitness (so I dont aggrivate anyone I want to add that I´m sure this didn´t apply to all players but some atleast). For instance i think i read somewhere that Guy Lafleur (might have been Gilbert Perreault, not 100% sure) used to smoke during games (between periods), and that doesnt do your fitness so good . And the Canadians (again not sure this applies to all players, i know Bobby Clarke had to care about his fitness due to diabetes) didnt train very hard during the offseason while the russians would be at training camp all the time.

In short i think the Russians simply trained harder and alot more often and took their fitness alot more seriously and continously improves their technique. Again, this is my theory and id actually like some feedback on it, and id also like to know if the rumor about perreault/lafleur smoking is true, or the offseason letgo of general fitness.

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

I disagree with your point that the Soviets were the top hockey country in the world, but, besides that...

The reasons are:
1. They could build on the back of what Canada had learned. Tarasov was able to start from where hockey was tactically and technically in the late 40's and build a style from there.
2. The communist system was well suited to focused development.
3. Canada wasn't really trying to improve the game at that point. Due to the success of the original 6 era, there wasn't a grassroots push to create to update the developmental system beyond what Frank Selke had implemented in the 30's and 40's.

I agree with your summary overall but I don't agree that communism was suited to focused development. If by development you mean ruling with an iron fist, making extreme demands of your athletes, employing fear and retribution as a tactic to gain loyalty and keeping athletes/people ignorant of their basic rights, then yes. It may create some good athletes/teams in the short term, but many hurt and damaged people in the long term. Many of the Soviet players hated Tikhinov. There's a story about Larionov and a few others having to sneak away from their hotel during the 87 CC and joining Gretzky and others at a player's house for a BBQ. Canada eventually understood the Soviet system and repeatedly outclassed them once they learned that they had more heart and pride than the Soviet players. This was because they were playing for themselves and a political system that respected them as people. The Soviet system dictated your rights, what you were allowed to do, think, say, etc... A system like this does not develop people that are invested. Rather it develops people that are dependent, secretive and resentful.

Mike Keenan's style of coaching had similarities and while he was successful early in his career, his style had become irrelevant and ineffective. Players didn't respond to him after awhile. I'm sure many resented him. And it goes without saying that Keenan's style became irrelevant and ineffective after many former players challenged the NHL in the early 90's for basic rights to a decent pension, etc...Daddy could no longer drive the bus where he wanted to. This changed the face of player/owner and player/coach relations. Players were now people not objects for owners and coaches to rule.

 

[canucksfan]

The Challenge Cup is important. It's not as important as the 81' Canada Cup but to say the NHLers treated this game like an All Star game is ridiculous. Canada hated to lose against the Soviets. The Soviets did have the advantage because the Canadians didn't prepare as much for the game.

 

[seventieslord]

The reason why the USSR "caught up" is simple IMO, and before ppl start bashing me I´d like to say that this a theory and may very well be wrong . The russians were insanely competitive at that time, and by that i mean, they trained like idiots for 11 months of the year while playing their 40ish games of league hockey. The players were taken away from their families to train 300-some days of the year. From what Ive read and heard the NHL stars in the 60s-mid 70s weren´t as serious about their fitness (so I dont aggrivate anyone I want to add that I´m sure this didn´t apply to all players but some atleast). For instance i think i read somewhere that Guy Lafleur (might have been Gilbert Perreault, not 100% sure) used to smoke during games (between periods), and that doesnt do your fitness so good . And the Canadians (again not sure this applies to all players, i know Bobby Clarke had to care about his fitness due to diabetes) didnt train very hard during the offseason while the russians would be at training camp all the time.

In short i think the Russians simply trained harder and alot more often and took their fitness alot more seriously and continously improves their technique. Again, this is my theory and id actually like some feedback on it, and id also like to know if the rumor about perreault/lafleur smoking is true, or the offseason letgo of general fitness.

I don't disagree with your theories.

Canada was still the better team by 1972 and I don't think the Soviets ever truly "caught up", but there were three reasons they nearly won:

- the element of surprise.
- Canada did not send their very best. With Howe, Hull, & Orr, this is not close.
- everything you said. They were absolutely conditioned like crazy, probably to standards similar today. Tarasov was ahead of his time from a training standpoint. (actually, from a lot of standpoints)

As for the smoking, it's well-known that LaFleur was a walking chimney. Bossy too. I hadn't heard about Perreault.

 

[luffis]

i meant lafleur OR perreault, because i couldnt remember wich one of them the smoking was referred to, obviously it was lafleur. But ye, i´m sure the canadians were far superior in depth and overall skill. I mean, the Canadians were eligable in all departments of hockey (shooting, skating, hitting, passing and dangling) but since the russians didnt play the hitting game at all they werent ready for the checking/dirty canadians so i think some things combined made the 72 series so close. Later on the russians continued developing their game and had a HUGE talent pool to pick from, and since 90% of the Soviet teams were from the red army team, their national team was always great as a team.

- as you stated the element of surprise
- conditioning (it was pre season for the nhlers, even pre pre training season) but im quite sure the russians would have been better conditioned even if it was mid regular nhl season, allthough not as much.
- the russians had actually found some immense talent, kharlamov didnt start proper hockey training until he was 14 i believe.
- the russians were alot better as a team, i.e playing together continously for a very long time.

Im also a firm believer that the following super series were alot better for comparison (even if the series might not have been serious enough for the nhlers) since that took away the teamplay edge the russians had in the summit series of 72 where the various canadians most played on different teams. All star teams might have the best players but you get the most out of star players if they play with their regular teams.

EDIT: about Orr, Howe and Hull, ofcourse they would have made a difference, but with Orr it was injuries (wich is a part of hockey), many international teams have had star players not playing in the olympics because of injuries (i.e Mario 98). And you cant really blame the Russians for Howe and Hull since it was the Canadian organizers who chose to not include WHA players. Eventhough it is a valid point, 3 of the best players werent even there, im sure Tretiak wouldve had his pads full with a rushing Orr and a slapshot of doom from Hull.

 

[YMB29]

I saw the entire series when it happened. Basically the players, the way they played, treated it a bit more seriously than a All-Star game, but less seriously than playoff hockey. All the words in the world doesn't change the way they played, which was basically non-physical for the most part. I'm not entirely sure the Soviets took it that seriously either, since they played Myskin in the deciding game, not their bread and butter guy, Tretziak.

Tretiak was not playing well so that is why.
After game three's 6-0 loss there was shock, major disappointment, and a reevaluation of how hockey is developing in North America, so don't say that it was taken less seriously than a playoff game...

I agree with your summary overall but I don't agree that communism was suited to focused development. If by development you mean ruling with an iron fist, making extreme demands of your athletes, employing fear and retribution as a tactic to gain loyalty and keeping athletes/people ignorant of their basic rights, then yes. It may create some good athletes/teams in the short term, but many hurt and damaged people in the long term. Many of the Soviet players hated Tikhinov. There's a story about Larionov and a few others having to sneak away from their hotel during the 87 CC and joining Gretzky and others at a player's house for a BBQ. Canada eventually understood the Soviet system and repeatedly outclassed them once they learned that they had more heart and pride than the Soviet players. This was because they were playing for themselves and a political system that respected them as people. The Soviet system dictated your rights, what you were allowed to do, think, say, etc... A system like this does not develop people that are invested. Rather it develops people that are dependent, secretive and resentful.

This summarizes the Canadian, and Western in general, myths about the USSR and Soviet hockey.

 

[McGuillicuddy]

Tretiak was not playing well so that is why.
After game three's 6-0 loss there was shock, major disappointment, and a reevaluation of how hockey is developing in North America, so don't say that it was taken less seriously than a playoff game...

Never heard of that before. Regardless of whether or not that's true it has no bearing whatsoever on the intensity of the players on the ice, and that's the only thing that matters here.

You've seen exactly what happens when Canada has a best-on-best tournament that is taken seriously. There are training camps, there is a selection process, players are given a chance to play with each other and become to resemble a team rather than a collection of players. In 1979 the players were basically denied their all-star break and told to report for duty. They had exactly 3 practices together before the games began.

It's funny, it's those same people who say the Canada Cup competitions were not valid best-on-best competitions for this reason or that reason who cling to the 1979 Challenge Cup as the 'smoking gun' pointing to Soviet hockey supremacy in the late 70s/early 80s.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I agree with your summary overall but I don't agree that communism was suited to focused development. If by development you mean ruling with an iron fist, making extreme demands of your athletes, employing fear and retribution as a tactic to gain loyalty and keeping athletes/people ignorant of their basic rights, then yes. It may create some good athletes/teams in the short term, but many hurt and damaged people in the long term. Many of the Soviet players hated Tikhinov. There's a story about Larionov and a few others having to sneak away from their hotel during the 87 CC and joining Gretzky and others at a player's house for a BBQ. Canada eventually understood the Soviet system and repeatedly outclassed them once they learned that they had more heart and pride than the Soviet players. This was because they were playing for themselves and a political system that respected them as people. The Soviet system dictated your rights, what you were allowed to do, think, say, etc... A system like this does not develop people that are invested. Rather it develops people that are dependent, secretive and resentful.

Mike Keenan's style of coaching had similarities and while he was successful early in his career, his style had become irrelevant and ineffective. Players didn't respond to him after awhile. I'm sure many resented him. And it goes without saying that Keenan's style became irrelevant and ineffective after many former players challenged the NHL in the early 90's for basic rights to a decent pension, etc...Daddy could no longer drive the bus where he wanted to. This changed the face of player/owner and player/coach relations. Players were now people not objects for owners and coaches to rule.

Obviously the system wasn't the best for personal emotional and psychological well being. That is abundantly clear in retrospect. But in a dictatorial system, they can a) say this is where resources are going and nothing can stop it. and b) say that a talented young athlete will focus their entire life on training. Western democracies could and can't do those things. And that will fast track development.

 

[McGuillicuddy]

Incidentally, I've been watching some of the footage from those games again. I've never seen so many passed-up hit opportunities in my life on the part of the NHLers. There's just no way the fire of a true Canada-USSR matchup is in their bellies for those games. Soviet fans can cry all they want that the Challenge Cup was on the level of a Canada Cup/Summit Series/post-98 Olympics but it's just not true.

One more thing. Not to give the result any more consideration than it deserves, but the score of the series was 2-1, not 6-0. Don't forget that.

 

[Hanji]

Incidentally, I've been watching some of the footage from those games again. I've never seen so many passed-up hit opportunities in my life on the part of the NHLers. There's just no way the fire of a true Canada-USSR matchup is in their bellies for those games. Soviet fans can cry all they want that the Challenge Cup was on the level of a Canada Cup/Summit Series/post-98 Olympics but it's just not true.

One more thing. Not to give the result any more consideration than it deserves, but the score of the series was 2-1, not 6-0. Don't forget that.

Who is saying otherwise?

 

[Hanji]

Never heard of that before. Regardless of whether or not that's true it has no bearing whatsoever on the intensity of the players on the ice, and that's the only thing that matters here.

You've seen exactly what happens when Canada has a best-on-best tournament that is taken seriously. There are training camps, there is a selection process, players are given a chance to play with each other and become to resemble a team rather than a collection of players. In 1979 the players were basically denied their all-star break and told to report for duty. They had exactly 3 practices together before the games began.

It's funny, it's those same people who say the Canada Cup competitions were not valid best-on-best competitions for this reason or that reason who cling to the 1979 Challenge Cup as the 'smoking gun' pointing to Soviet hockey supremacy in the late 70s/early 80s.

Not a smoking gun but example of Soviet national team as superior to Canada at the time. Canada Cup and Challange cup were Canadas and NHL series played on their terms. Canada and NHL had all advantages but practice time. Soviets came in and defeated Canada and NHL at their own game and under Canada and NHL terms. Credit is deserved as the better team.

 

[tikkanen5rings*]

The Soviet Union first participated in the ice hockey World Championships in 1954. In 1972 they played the Super Series against Canada and the games showed that the Soviets had fully caught up Canada. By the late 1970s the Soviets were already ahead Canada and clearly the top hockey country in the world.

What made all this possible? There was only 18 years between 1954 and 1972. In just 18 years the Soviets went from ground zero to the best hockey nation in the world. How did the Soviets caught up Canada, who had a 100 year old hockey history and far more hockey resources (players, teams, rinks, equipment etc.), so fast?

They wanted to show how superor communists are. So they picked a sport that could be easily taken over. Actually they first thought was to dominate soccer. Clearly that was impossible so they went with hockey.
Started a program witch gathered all the best hockey players of CCCP and trained them professionally to face Canadas and other countries amateur national teams.

 

[Zine]

They wanted to show how superor communists are. So they picked a sport that could be easily taken over. Actually they first thought was to dominate soccer. Clearly that was impossible so they went with hockey.
Started a program witch gathered all the best hockey players of CCCP and trained them professionally to face Canadas and other countries amateur national teams.

Hockey was far from the only sport Soviets did this with. It's not like all soviet sporting resources went into hockey to prove communist superiority....far from it. Hockey was just one of the many.

 

[Zine]

I think we're forgetting the influence bandy (very similar game to hockey) played. Having numerous elite bandy players gave the Soviet Union a solid foundation on which to build the hockey program on.

 

[David Suzuki]

My opinion having studied Russian and Soviet politics and having, in my own modest opinion, a better understanding of the Soviet Union than most Canadians, I'd argue it has a lot to do with mindset. For a North American, playing for a club team means more. That is, with it, you seem to get more publicity, and thus, $$$. Where as for someone from the Soviet Union, the idea of playing for ones national side, thus, getting respect and what not from the people and government took priority over any $$$ value. I am, of course, stereotyping horribly, but alas, that is what I feel was the most important thing. I'd still argue that Canada as a whole was better, but that we will never see anything like the Soviet national team again.

Again, everything I am saying is second hand information as I never did go to the USSR and am relying on published information as well as having spoken to people alive during what I guess we would call the glory days of the Soviet hockey system.

They wanted to show how superor communists are.

That's ridiculous. I think they had better ways to show how superior the USSR and Communism were than to have some guys play hockey. I'd argue the Soviet hockey system was, though run by the government, sort of separate from it in that it was not very political.

 

[YMB29]

Never heard of that before. Regardless of whether or not that's true it has no bearing whatsoever on the intensity of the players on the ice, and that's the only thing that matters here.

Never heard of what? It sounds like you never heard of the Challenge Cup...

You've seen exactly what happens when Canada has a best-on-best tournament that is taken seriously. There are training camps, there is a selection process, players are given a chance to play with each other and become to resemble a team rather than a collection of players. In 1979 the players were basically denied their all-star break and told to report for duty. They had exactly 3 practices together before the games began.

Nobody complained about practice time before the games. This was discussed in the pre-game talk of game one.

Incidentally, I've been watching some of the footage from those games again. I've never seen so many passed-up hit opportunities in my life on the part of the NHLers. There's just no way the fire of a true Canada-USSR matchup is in their bellies for those games.

Kharlamov was injured after a hit...
You sure you were watching the right games?

One more thing. Not to give the result any more consideration than it deserves, but the score of the series was 2-1, not 6-0. Don't forget that.

The final game was 6-0 and this was embarrassing for the NHL.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

The Challenge Cup is important. It's not as important as the 81' Canada Cup but to say the NHLers treated this game like an All Star game is ridiculous. Canada hated to lose against the Soviets. The Soviets did have the advantage because the Canadians didn't prepare as much for the game.

It was played with a bit more intensity and hitting than the all-star games of the 70's (note, those all-star games were much more intense than the one's nowadays so this statement has to be looked at in context.). But it was nowhere as intense as an NHL Stanley Cup game of the era.

It was a nice win for the Soviets, and like I said before, they were probably better than the Canadians at that time as evidenced by their victory only 2 years later against a better Canadian squad than the NHL All-Star team they faced at the Challenge Cup, but I really think too much weight is given to The Challenge Cup victory by Soviet hockey fans.

 

[skroob**]

Perhaps drugs/steroids come into play as well?

 

[Kshahdoo]

I guess it's russian hockey (aka bandy) traditions first and everything other second. Bandy was a #2 sport in USSR before canadian hockey came and replaced it. So soviet hockey had a good base to start from. Considering this, those 25 years which were taken to get to Canada hockey level can't be called "so fast"...

BTW when Soviet team played vs the best Czech team (LTC I assume, most of its players were world champions) in 1948, some of soviet players couldn't even lift a puck above the ice. And they managed to beat czechs in the 2nd game and played draw in the 3rd (it turned out 1-1-1 out of 3)...

 

[GKJ]

It was played with a bit more intensity and hitting than the all-star games of the 70's (note, those all-star games were much more intense than the one's nowadays so this statement has to be looked at in context.). But it was nowhere as intense as an NHL Stanley Cup game of the era.

It was a nice win for the Soviets, and like I said before, they were probably better than the Canadians at that time as evidenced by their victory only 2 years later against a better Canadian squad than the NHL All-Star team they faced at the Challenge Cup, but I really think too much weight is given to The Challenge Cup victory by Soviet hockey fans.

I don't want to say that it's easier to say that it means less when you lose it, but to Russians it was a bigger deal to win that than it was for Canada to lose it. It seems that Canada Cups had more to do with it, and were a bigger deal to everyone, because it was a best-on-best tournament at the end of the off-season when everyone was technically at full strength.

 

[KingGallagherXI]

Stalin played a role in that. Basically beating Canada at their own sport was a huge propaganda tool. The communist system is much better than capitalism at producing elite athletes.

 

[ozo]

Stalin played a role in that. Basically beating Canada at their own sport was a huge propaganda tool. The communist system is much better than capitalism at producing elite athletes.

Stalin was dead by the time Soviets played their first competative game and before you can even talk about any rivalry with Canada.