1979 Challenge Cup discussion thread

[hammerwielder]

And so that is why you sound like every biased Canadian fan, for the most part...

It's become painfully clear that some here are not remotely interested in learning anything, engaging in any thoughtful form of debate, or offering anything other than the same mindless homerisms over and over again. This is whining and trolling that knows no bounds. In the end facts are useless to this type of discussion and I find myself forced to agree with Mr Kanadensisk's rather astute observation that "When the present and future look bleak to admit defeat in the past would be to realize that you have nothing." With this kind of prose, he even beats you at Russian angst.

 

[Anderson9]

Kapustin lost the opening faceoff, and only a bad clearing attempt by the Flyers gets it back for them at the blueline. Soviets are kept on the perimeter, Kasatonov's point shot is blocked in front, the rebound goes right to Kapustin in the right slot who shoots wide, Lindbergh holds. Off the faceoff Kasatonov's point shot is wide, the rebound goes to Kapustin again, passes back to Kasatonov, over to Fetisov, whose point shot is wide right, rebound to Kasatonov at the point, over to Fetisov, cross-seam pass down to Kapustin (same set play later in the PP results in the goal), he's checked and his cross ice pass is intercepted by a Flyer. Soviet forwards start a change, then another bad clearing attempt by the Flyer player is intercepted easily by Fetisov, who promptly puts himself offside under checking pressure at the blueline while waiting for new linemates.

Larionov loses the ensuing faceoff and the puck is sent down the ice from the Flyers blueline. Kasatonov retrieves and passes off to Fetisov in the Soviet corner under forechecking pressure. Fetisov carries up ice slowly and tries to dish off to Kasatonov at the Flyers blueline but Kasatonov is checked and the puck floats out to centre. After regaining the puck Kasatonov skates back to the Soviet blueline to regroup. He passes to 28, who dishes back to Kasatonov near the Flyers blueline, to Krutov just inside the blueline, who turns it over again. The Flyer player to whom the puck floats gloves the puck to a teammate who is being interfered with by Krutov, no call, and 28 picks up the loose puck and shovels it back to Kasatonov at the blue line. Kasatonov backhands it under pressure to no one in particular and the puck is picked up by a Flyer in front of the net. Once again the clearing attempt is weak and the Flyer player who initially receives the puck inside the Flyer blueline is stick-checked by Fetisov onside and the puck rolls back into the zone where Larionov gets his stick on it and nudges it over to Krutov on the right wing. At this point the Flyer penalty killers are dog tired, having failed in three easy opportunities to clear the puck, and start running around in the defensive zone. Krutov passes to Larionov at the point who passes back to Krutov on the sideboard who tries the relay back but it isn't accurate and the puck is taken by Kasatonov who swings it over to Fetisov at the left point. The PK is now gassed and completely out of position. Fetisov fakes a shot and then goes back to Kasatonov, who fakes a shot and instead passes to Larionov who he spots in front of the collapsed Flyers box, who tips over to Krutov at the right dot who spots a cross-seam lane back to Fetisov. Krutov runs a pick play on the Flyers defenseman, no call, while Larionov cruises in behind unmarked and Fetisov relays it across the still-vacant diagonal seam to Larionov who scores on the only SOG of the power play by the Soviets with less than 20 seconds left on the PP. It's a very scrambly final sequence featuring a tired PK unit that is just running around.

One of the great contributions by the Soviet style to the game was modern power play strategy, and consequently the type of positioning and passing on this particular power play could now be executed by any good power play unit today in the NHL and even by a good junior team. The Flyers missed a bundle of opportunities to clear the puck and get a second PK unit on the ice and that enabled the Soviets (and would enable almost any other competent team now in a similar situation) to pass the puck around almost at will in the dying seconds of the PP.

Sergei Kapustin who invariably wore #8 on the NT, rarely was seen taking faceoffs as he was a left wing. On this video it's KLM line that's seen working the whole of the powerplay, Krutov taking the initial faceoff instead of Larionov, with Tyumenev #28 subbing for Makarov who missed the series due to a fractured leg.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

So I ask again why do you keep on starting these threads if you are so secure?

I know the pc thing to do would be to turn the other cheek to all the Canada bashing by Russian hockey fans that goes on on these boards, but I choose not to. Think of me as the eater of Red Trolls.

 

[Anderson9]

Viktor Tikhonov, coach of the Soviet national hockey team, said a major reason for losing the Canada Cup final earlier this month was "bias and errors in refereeing."
In an interview with the trade union newspaper Trud, Tikhonov was also critical of his own defensemen and goalies and promised a shakeup at those positions.

The Soviets lost to the Canadians, 6-5, in the third and deciding match of the fourth Canada Cup at Hamilton, Canada, last week. The previous two games were split by 6-5 scores, one in overtime and the other in two overtimes.

Mario Lemieux's 11th goal of the tournament with 1:26 left in the third period of the deciding game gave Canada the victory in a contest officiated by Canadian referee Dan Koharski and Soviet linesman Mikhail Galinovski.

Tikhonov did not mention Koharski by name.
http://articles.latimes.com/1987-09-...rts/sp-10089_1

I can find more from Russian media interviews if you want.

Back then, with no access whatever to the Western media, both the press and SW stations which were still jammed in the fall of 1987 I perused every source during and after the Canada Cup. Analysts Konstantin Loktev, Vladimir Dvortsov, Vladimir Ryzhkov, Yury Tsybanev – none of those made excuses.
True, occasional reference to questionable calls did pop up here and there, but never any further than routine talk you always hear when your team loses a closely contested sporting event. Not a single major outcry or repeated complaint of the referees’ bias. Not because the media was pro-Canada. Simply because there was nothing to belly-ache about. It was in a similar fashion that the Soviet press responded to the semifinal loss to Canada in 1984. Can someone in their right mind maintain that it was due to their natural born impartiality? Eat me! They wouldn’t miss a chance of emphasizing for instance, East German dominance over West Germany those days. I couldn’t help laughing when in Anatoly Tarasov’s 1968 book, Sovershennoletiye (Hockey Comes Of Age) I read that East German hockey, modeled on Soviet achievements, made rapid progress whilst there West German counterpart was stalling, all because of their adoption of the backward Canadian game. This is only one example of how tense the ideological war was, but I repeat that no Soviet edition lashed out at Eagleson or the referees in 1987, even those papers that turned Stalinist in about a year when glasnost' was introduced.

In an interview with the trade union newspaper Trud, Tikhonov was also critical

Did you actually read that newspaper? I did, and found nothing in the way of conspirology there.

So what are you trying to say with this?
He is saying that CSKA was underperforming with the talent the team had and he was brought in to change this.

Tikhonov didn't work a miracle here. When coaching Dynamo Riga with its mediocre roster, he couldn’t dream of getting close to a top three finish in the Soviet league. Since his transfer to CSKA he only managed to dominate the league and record an unprecedented winning streak thanks to privileges in manning his team, not his novel coaching technique. Want me to draw up a list of all these transfers which were to serve the interests of the National Team, as papers of those days put it?

So they killed the domestic championship and this somehow got the hockey machine going? QUOTE]

What they did was kill the intrigue. I maintain this as a long-time CSKA fan. Or you’re bent on denying it?

Yes the Soviets were actually planning an invasion of North America to follow up on their victory in 1979...

Canada, as a NATO member was potentially targeted by the Soviets. Of course, there’s no direct connection between the Challenge Cup hockey and the Soviet military doctrine. FYI, the latter stipulated the expansion of what they called "the world of socialism", by bolstering puppet pro-Marxist regimes, something I remember all too vividly. Go read up on history, it sure isn’t your strong point..

That was/is common in European soccer, not just in the USSR.

That takes the cake. Do you mean to say Hoeness, Schwarzenbeck, Breitner et al. or Cruijff, Krol, Rep at al. were transferred to Bayern/Ajax respectively on orders from their State Committee for Sports?

You are really paranoid...

"Finding proof to superiority of communism over capitalism". Exactly this, and here I stand. Again, there are gaps in your knowledge. That was part and parcel of the Soviet ideological doctrine that eventually came undone… And you, YMB27, an ethnical suspect from an undisclosed country, have the gall to take that tone with a citizen of Russia and diagnose me as a case of paranoia? You really ARE laughable.

 

[Zine]

and after the wall fell and we had the NHL as a basis to compare all players the most Soviet trained players ever to finish in the top 30 scoring was 5. I never said the USSR didn't produce any great players, but rather very few great players in comparison to Canada.

NHL a basis for comparison? Riiiight. None of the Soviets were trained in North American style of game......often the first few waves of Soviet players were like fish out of water.
Likewise, I'm sure Cam Neely would've been just as great if he was asked to skate and weave within the soviets system.
Let's not pretend the hockey world was as globalized as it is today.


Regardless of stats, results, prep time, etc. etc., it's very easy to assess relative skill level of players and teams by simply watching a game.

Go watch Switzerland beat Canada in 2006 Olympics. Were the Swiss the better team? Yes. Did they have better players? Not in a million years.

On an individual level, Soviet players were always as good as Canadians. Why don't you WATCH some games!

 

[Zine]

Soviet national team was just as deep as Canada from mid 70s to mid/late 80s....sometimes more.

In the years Canada was behind Soviets, I believe it can be attributed to poor skill development (as articulated nicely by Harry Sinden in the article I posted earlier). Soviet depth became sub-par in late 1980s (horrible depth of 1987 CC team is a great example) , imo, partly because of normal talent ebb & flo, but mainly as an unintended consequence of a ridiculously unbalanced national league.

 

[YMB29]

It's become painfully clear that some here are not remotely interested in learning anything, engaging in any thoughtful form of debate, or offering anything other than the same mindless homerisms over and over again. This is whining and trolling that knows no bounds. In the end facts are useless to this type of discussion and I find myself forced to agree with Mr Kanadensisk's rather astute observation that "When the present and future look bleak to admit defeat in the past would be to realize that you have nothing." With this kind of prose, he even beats you at Russian angst.

For fans who are supposedly secure you two try really hard to uphold and prove the myth of Canada's superiority over the Soviets...
I am really tired of you bringing up old silly stereotypes, making laughable claims, and ignoring what you don't like.

I know the pc thing to do would be to turn the other cheek to all the Canada bashing by Russian hockey fans that goes on on these boards, but I choose not to. Think of me as the eater of Red Trolls.

What Canada bashing by Russian fans?

True, occasional reference to questionable calls did pop up here and there, but never any further than routine talk you always hear when your team loses a closely contested sporting event. Not a single major outcry or repeated complaint of the referees’ bias. Not because the media was pro-Canada. Simply because there was nothing to belly-ache about. It was in a similar fashion that the Soviet press responded to the semifinal loss to Canada in 1984. Can someone in their right mind maintain that it was due to their natural born impartiality?

The Soviets did not typically complain since that could have been interpreted as poor sportsmanship. Whether there was a major outcry in 1987 or not, I don't know, but the article suggests that there was at least some criticism.
So you think there was nothing to complain about??

This is only one example of how tense the ideological war was, but I repeat that no Soviet edition lashed out at Eagleson or the referees in 1987

Well apparently you did not read Trud back then, or the interviews in Sport-Express and Soviet Sport more recently.

Tikhonov didn't work a miracle here. When coaching Dynamo Riga with its mediocre roster, he couldn’t dream of getting close to a top three finish in the Soviet league.

Why, if he was so close in 1977?

Since his transfer to CSKA he only managed to dominate the league and record an unprecedented winning streak thanks to privileges in manning his team, not his novel coaching technique.

So why then did every coach since Tarasov fail to do that?

What they did was kill the intrigue. I maintain this as a long-time CSKA fan. Or you’re bent on denying it?

To kill or lessen the intrigue is not the same as killing the championship...

Canada, as a NATO member was potentially targeted by the Soviets. Of course, there’s no direct connection between the Challenge Cup hockey and the Soviet military doctrine. FYI, the latter stipulated the expansion of what they called "the world of socialism", by bolstering puppet pro-Marxist regimes, something I remember all too vividly. Go read up on history, it sure isn’t your strong point..

Well yes you have shown yourself to be a master of popular history; I wish I knew as much as you...
No direct connection between the Challenge Cup and Soviet military doctrine?? I was looking forward to you lecturing on about the detailed plans of the evil Soviets after their great propaganda victory.

That takes the cake. Do you mean to say Hoeness, Schwarzenbeck, Breitner et al. or Cruijff, Krol, Rep at al. were transferred to Bayern/Ajax respectively on orders from their State Committee for Sports?

No don't be silly, I meant that wealthy teams taking many of the best players and dominating is common for European soccer.

"Finding proof to superiority of communism over capitalism". Exactly this, and here I stand. Again, there are gaps in your knowledge. That was part and parcel of the Soviet ideological doctrine that eventually came undone…

You think that when it came to sports everyone in the USSR was obsessed with this, instead of just winning over rivals?
Also, you think that beating the Soviets in sports had no ideological value for Canada and the US, to show the superiority of a "free" society? Then why were wins in 1972 and 1980 so important?

And you, YMB27, an ethnical suspect from an undisclosed country, have the gall to take that tone with a citizen of Russia and diagnose me as a case of paranoia? You really ARE laughable.

You bringing up ideology and silly Cold War cliches into almost every post is being paranoid.
I guess the country you put as your location here gives you some kind of a status.
So you are Russian and not a Canadian living in Russia?

 

[hammerwielder]

Sergei Kapustin who invariably wore #8 on the NT, rarely was seen taking faceoffs as he was a left wing. On this video it's KLM line that's seen working the whole of the powerplay, Krutov taking the initial faceoff instead of Larionov, with Tyumenev #28 subbing for Makarov who missed the series due to a fractured leg.

Thanks for the corrections. I didn't listen to the play by play and I also thought I saw an "8" take the first faceoff, so either my eyes or the video, or both, weren't very good on that call. On second view I also saw that only Kasatonov had retreated behind the blue line to back up Fetisov before the offside occurred. The fact the PP unit stayed out for the full 1:40 says a lot about their conditioning -- the Flyers PK unit was bagged, although to be fair they had to do all the physical defensive zone coverage and there were only four of them.

It would have been utterly amazing if these guys had been able to play in the NHL in the '80s. As it was, Larionov played more than 1000 games in the league after he came over (!), but we didn't get to see much of him in his 20's.

 

[hammerwielder]

What Canada bashing by Russian fans?

 

[Anderson9]

Thanks for the corrections. I didn't listen to the play by play and I also thought I saw an "8" take the first faceoff, so either my eyes or the video, or both, weren't very good on that call. On second view I also saw that only Kasatonov had retreated behind the blue line to back up Fetisov before the offside occurred. The fact the PP unit stayed out for the full 1:40 says a lot about their conditioning -- the Flyers PK unit was bagged, although to be fair they had to do all the physical defensive zone coverage and there were only four of them.

It would have been utterly amazing if these guys had been able to play in the NHL in the '80s. As it was, Larionov played more than 1000 games in the league after he came over (!), but we didn't get to see much of him in his 20's.

Let me add to this vid that it shows KLM’s earlier formation with Kasatonov at right point, Fetisov at left In 1985, the two switched places, Fetisov, a LH shooter now stationed himself to the right of center-point, closer to quarterbacking the PP, with Kasatonov sliding down low from his point, making it look like an umbrella.

 

[Anderson9]

So you are Russian and not a Canadian living in Russia

I’ve got nothing to hide, I am a Russian, born and living in Russia, a fan of both soccer and hockey, who can appreciate the beauty of the game, shown by no matter what team or nationals.

Problem with you, YMB27 is, you’re not only a suspect ethnically (which in itself is half the problem, I’m not extorting a confession after all), you’re a boring poster. Your posts carry no message except for cliché'd talk of Soviet supremacy and Canadian conspiracies. Who do you think you’re fooling when you break other comments up into disjointed text fragments and set about splitting hairs? Look at your own posts instead, you’re obsessed with particularities, unable to see the forest for the trees or make up what would look more or less like a theory of your own.

Now you’d refer to some occasional newspaper interview that allegedly sheds light on Canadian cheating. Then you recommend me to dismiss the political background in cccp v. Canada games, and ultimately, u come up with the notion that star soccer clubs lived off some mysterious state-appointed sponsors.

And finally your choice of emoticons, or rather your idea of 'derisory' smileys. You seriously think other posters can’t do the same?

You’re out of the loop, Mr. Nowhere Man.

In a word, yours is a textbook case of demagoguery. Plus, as I said before, some gaping vacancies in your knowledge want filling up. Try contacting me via personal message, i'll help.


С приветом)
Ш.С., alias anderson9, Казань, Российская Федерация.

 

[YMB29]

Problem with you, YMB27 is, you’re not only a suspect ethnically (which in itself is half the problem, I’m not extorting a confession after all)

Ethnically suspect? What is that supposed to mean?

Your posts carry no message except for cliché'd talk of Soviet supremacy and Canadian conspiracies.

Where do you see me talking about that?

Who do you think you’re fooling when you break other comments up into disjointed text fragments and set about splitting hairs? Look at your own posts instead, you’re obsessed with particularities, unable to see the forest for the trees or make up what would look more or less like a theory of your own.

I don't like to make silly theories like you and others do here. You are not good with details and facts, so I can understand you not liking me pointing out your faults.

Now you’d refer to some occasional newspaper interview that allegedly sheds light on Canadian cheating.

I was asked for proof of Soviets complaining.

Then you recommend me to dismiss the political background in cccp v. Canada games, and ultimately, u come up with the notion that star soccer clubs lived off some mysterious state-appointed sponsors.

You are not reading what I wrote.
It is not right to give more attention to politics in hockey than it deserves, especially when you keep on posting your own political views.

And finally your choice of emoticons, or rather your idea of 'derisory' smileys. You seriously think other posters can’t do the same?

Ok you can do the same...

You’re out of the loop, Mr. Nowhere Man.

In a word, yours is a textbook case of demagoguery. Plus, as I said before, some gaping vacancies in your knowledge want filling up. Try contacting me via personal message, i'll help.

Demagoguery and lack of knowledge? Well look who is talking... Your posts speak for themselves.

С приветом)
Ш.С., alias anderson9, Казань, Российская Федерация.

Yes you really are "с приветом"...

 

[Yakushev72]

Yakushev 72

Familiarity, systems, cohesiveness, synergies.

I remember when the NHL All-Star game consisted of the Stanley Cup champion playing a team of all-stars chosen from the other five teams back in the days of the original six. More often than not the all-stars would lose because, though their team had the better and more talented players, the team they faced was much better as a team.

Fast forward to the post-Soviet era for team Russia. The talent of the individual players is at least equal to that possessed by the players on the Soviet national side, but as a team they suffer from the same affliction of unfamiliarity as do other national teams today, composed of all-stars that do not play together on a regular basis. This is what set apart the Soviet national team from any other: the luxury of having a domestic league geared entirely toward the success of the national side, where least a dozen of its players played together year-round on both the top club team and the national team, and the other players were dispersed as forward lines or defence units or both with two or three other teams that served as designated competitors for the top team.

The synergies from such an approach were obvious in the form of the magical record the national team maintained in international play (and that the top club team achieved in league play, going virtually undefeated by other Soviet club teams during entire seasons and winning 16 league titles in a row -- try that in the modern NHL).

One of the only modern examples of the type of synergy that can only be developed over a career spent playing together is the Sedin twins. They have that same other-worldly ability to anticipate each others' moves that makes the pairing much greater than the sum of its individual parts. I would not say that either twin on its own is among the best Swedish players of all time, on the level of a Forsberg or Sundin or Lidstrom, but as a unit they are devastating. And they also know they are much stronger as that unit than as individuals, as do the teams for which they have played: they stick together not so much out of brotherly love but for the much higher value they individually command as a result of their synergies, a synergistic value that has been recognized by all of the organizations for which they have played.

Now take that modern example of a synergistic unit of two players and multiply it by 2.5, and you describe every one of the better five-man units on the Soviet national team. I believe this makes the point very clearly.

In my opinion, you are vastly underrating the synergy and sameness of the Canadian hockey system. Canadian teams have played the same system -dump, chase, forecheck - for the past 40 years with very little variation or difference. Canadian players know exactly where their teammates will be at any time on the ice, because the first (and maybe second) guy in forechecks, and the others go to the slot to receive a pass if the forechecker picks up a loose puck. If you actually watch video, you'll see that system is played out over and over throughout the junior leagues and the NHL. Just because they system is simple, it doesn't mean that it's not a system that everyone is plugged into.

 

[Anderson9]

Yes you really are "с приветом"... )

Well in this thread, you have so far been one of least prepared posters, and the most biased one at that, and your failure to compose a more or less articulate comment serving proof of that.

Oh boy, as for "с приветом" you're way off. This betrays your overall personal unfriendliness and wariness of strangers. Wherever you happen to live Mr. Nowhere Man (or whatever your current country is) are shrinks better qualified? Or worse still, compared to wherever you'd lived before? (mine's a different field of medicine anyway).

Ethnically suspect? What is that supposed to mean?

Aren't you trying to make me out a bigot BTW?. Still, I've a feeling that you're neither Russian nor Finnish nor Hungarian nor Latin American... Could you come out? People on here will begin to feel for you. If you prefer to keep on trolling though, respect will be withheld for awhile.

 

[hammerwielder]

In my opinion, you are vastly underrating the synergy and sameness of the Canadian hockey system. Canadian teams have played the same system -dump, chase, forecheck - for the past 40 years with very little variation or difference. Canadian players know exactly where their teammates will be at any time on the ice, because the first (and maybe second) guy in forechecks, and the others go to the slot to receive a pass if the forechecker picks up a loose puck. If you actually watch video, you'll see that system is played out over and over throughout the junior leagues and the NHL. Just because they system is simple, it doesn't mean that it's not a system that everyone is plugged into.

Well, that's an interesting view, but I think and every Canadian coach would I think agree that it's a vast oversimplification. There are 30 NHL teams and about as many offensive and defensive systems; sure, there are commonalities in terms of basic components, but one could not possibly compare, say, the Minnesota system under Lemaire or the New Jersey system up until a couple of years ago with Pittsburgh's or Washington's. And how is it "Canadian" hockey now, anyway? Less than 50% of the skill players in the league are Canadian. One can make a similar case about the style of every other hockey nation now: dump and chase, forecheck, cycle low, control the boards, trap, etc.

The fact is that pretty much all national teams are in the same boat now, and the relative parity among the big four or big five is proof of that compared to the situation in the 70's and 80's. The Soviets were dominant then over every country except when they faced Canada's best, against whom they lost five times out of seven by the slimmest of margins, and smoked Canada on the other two occasions. There was the occasional Czechoslovakian upset as well because the Czechs also had an outstanding team molded to some extent in the Soviet style. Other than that, however, the Soviets were dominant, including over any B or C pro team Canada sent to the WC.

Were the Soviets that way either because they had superior players to everyone else, which is what I thought and feared at the time, or had they developed their individual skill for defined roles in a well conceived and highly practiced system? I think the latter theory is closest to the mark. For one, Canada's best teams were still capable not only competing with but defeating them. The 87 series and also the 72 series demonstrated that when these teams met in best on best fettle they were capable of raising each others' game and of producing breathtaking hockey. That is one reason why the history of Canada-Soviet hockey is and always will be important to students of the game.

Secondly, the performance of Soviet team members and defectors who migrated to the NHL in the early 90's also supports the hypothesis that there was no individual performance gap between the best Soviet and Canadian players. In saying this I am mindful of the fact that some Soviet players may have already been past their peak by this time, particularly Krutov and to a lesser extent Makarov, and also had difficulty adjusting to the 80-game schedule and brutally physical play of the NHL. The compete level of players such as Bure, Mogilny, Fedorov and Vyacheslav Kozlov and of other national team players such as Kamensky, Nemchinov, Semak and others made it clear that while many became great players in the NHL, there was no performance gap between them and the best Canadian players as individuals. What did strike me however was that the former Soviets were individually noticeably less than the sum of their parts, that they no longer had that dangerous mystique that playing as a unit had brought to their play.

I fear that you may misinterpret the thrust of my submission about the differences in team play: I do not cite the Soviet team factor as the sole reason for their success, unlike some; to the contrary, I say that the skill of their individual players made them capable of beating anyone on a given night, whatever system, or lack of system, they used. I think that Russian teams of today also have that capability, although they are weakened by not having access to players from all Soviet republics and more so by the absence of the Soviet team play system. What set Soviet national teams of that time apart is that by having not only world-class individual skill but a system that was second to none, they were dominant in their generation.

I think it's a great shame that the Tarasov system is not around today, except in certain specialized applications where fragments of it survive. However, to play that system required not only skill but phenomenal repetition. Soviet hockey was unaffected by economic factors and consequently the best players could stay on a single team throughout their careers. This is not possible in today's NHL and won't happen again. More's the pity.

 

[YMB29]

Well in this thread, you have so far been one of least prepared posters, and the most biased one at that, and your failure to compose a more or less articulate comment serving proof of that.

You don't read what I write carefully, so it is not surprising that you say that.

Oh boy, as for "с приветом" you're way off. This betrays your overall personal unfriendliness and wariness of strangers. Wherever you happen to live Mr. Nowhere Man (or whatever your current country is) are shrinks better qualified? Or worse still, compared to wherever you'd lived before? (mine's a different field of medicine anyway).

With such posts you are only proving my point.

Aren't you trying to make me out a bigot BTW?. Still, I've a feeling that you're neither Russian nor Finnish nor Hungarian nor Latin American... Could you come out? People on here will begin to feel for you. If you prefer to keep on trolling though, respect will be withheld for awhile.

I still don't understand what you are trying to say. You can think of me as being from North Korea if you want...

The Soviets were dominant then over every country except when they faced Canada's best, against whom they lost five times out of seven by the slimmest of margins, and smoked Canada on the other two occasions.

Lost five of seven?
And you still counting even the 91 Canada Cup.
Canada did not beat the Soviets in 91, and were even lucky to get a tie against a Soviet B or C team.

What did strike me however was that the former Soviets were individually noticeably less than the sum of their parts, that they no longer had that dangerous mystique that playing as a unit had brought to their play.

You still going with this? It is not about some mysterious Soviet unit power... If you put players in a system very different from what they played in, of course they won't look as effective.

 

[Anderson9]

YMB27,
Someone’s tendency to indulge in personalities eh… how shall I put it, sums them up as a case of one of the following:
1. overwrought nerves and/or
2. substance abuse
Your ad hominem attacks to the effect that someone else is "paranoid" are testimony to which of the above?
And there’s also something that, for that matter, gives me grounds for suggesting that yours is an obsessive case, like in the below-mentioned:

Lost five of seven?
And you still counting even the 91 Canada Cup.
Canada did not beat the Soviets in 91, and were even lucky to get a tie against a Soviet B or C team.

When reading your previous posts I thought you were kidding, only to have to change my mind later on. Pranksters have self-irony. You don't have any. Well then, you’re going to match up a 5th place finisher team to the unquestionable winner in 1991 on the basis of their tied head-to-head game? Canada, for their part, could have had hugely more justifiable claims to technically being world’s number one earlier at WHC-1991 when their C-team tied the Soviets as well, only to be denied gold medals by Mats Sundin’s late GWG on USSR’s Trefilov. You’re the first (and hopefully the last) one to build up that round robin tie as evidence of Canada’s another undeserved/flukey win in a tournament that USSR blew miserably. That’s a new one on me.

And, as you may have noticed, I steer clear of ethnophobic statements. So you’re a man without a country, no?

 

[YMB29]

YMB27,
Someone’s tendency to indulge in personalities eh… how shall I put it, sums them up as a case of one of the following:
1. overwrought nerves and/or
2. substance abuse
Your ad hominem attacks to the effect that someone else is "paranoid" are testimony to which of the above?
And there’s also something that, for that matter, gives me grounds for suggesting that yours is an obsessive case, like in the below-mentioned:

I don't know if you are trying to be funny but you are not...
Your incoherent statements, wild claims, generalizations, and exaggerations, as well as your constant repetition of Cold War anti-Soviet cliches indicate that something is not right with you.
Your obsession with outdated anti-Soviet propaganda makes you sound like a Westerner who grew up during the Cold War, or a Russian who is out of touch with reality.

When reading your previous posts I thought you were kidding, only to have to change my mind later on. Pranksters have self-irony. You don't have any. Well then, you’re going to match up a 5th place finisher team to the unquestionable winner in 1991 on the basis of their tied head-to-head game? Canada, for their part, could have had hugely more justifiable claims to technically being world’s number one earlier at WHC-1991 when their C-team tied the Soviets as well, only to be denied gold medals by Mats Sundin’s late GWG on USSR’s Trefilov. You’re the first (and hopefully the last) one to build up that round robin tie as evidence of Canada’s another undeserved/flukey win in a tournament that USSR blew miserably. That’s a new one on me.

Can you for once pay attention, instead of making a fool out of yourself...
He said that Canada's best beat the USSR five out of seven times (of course as usual he does not care if the USSR's best played or not), which includes the 91 Canada Cup. Barely getting a tie is not beating, even thought the Soviet team finished fifth.
This shows that you and him can't get the facts straight...

And, as you may have noticed, I steer clear of ethnophobic statements. So you’re a man without a country, no?

Again you can think of me as being from whatever country you want if that makes you feel better.
What "ethnophobic" statements you talking about? You suspecting me of belonging to some ethnicity that you don't like?

 

[hammerwielder]

Your incoherent statements, wild claims, generalizations, and exaggerations, as well as your constant repetition of Cold War anti-Soviet cliches indicate that something is not right with you.
Your obsession with outdated anti-Soviet propaganda makes you sound like a Westerner who grew up during the Cold War, or a Russian who is out of touch with reality.

Can you for once pay attention, instead of making a fool out of yourself...
He said that Canada's best beat the USSR five out of seven times (of course as usual he does not care if the USSR's best played or not), which includes the 91 Canada Cup. Barely getting a tie is not beating, even thought the Soviet team finished fifth.
This shows that you and him can't get the facts straight...

This is not worth responding to, so I will limit this post to a few concise observations. Apparently your participation in this forum is strictly confined to passive aggression. You have nothing to say and exist here only vicariously to rudely criticize the views expressed by others. I can't even say the views of others that are not in accord with your own, because you apparently can't man up enough to express any. I'm not going to comment further on inane and disdainful comments such as those above, as you are far too insecure an individual to let logic get in the way of your behavioural compulsions. And by all means continue to snipe away, really, but I am going to be skipping over your posts. I don't intend to waste another erg reading the cruel barbs that you so casually fling at legitimate participants in this forum nor will I contribute to nourishing whatever dysfunctional charge your behaviour gives you.

 

[YMB29]

You two acting like doctors by trying to diagnose me with some behavioral/mental problem instead of staying on topic says a lot.
What is so rude about my posts? That I point out your mistakes? You don't follow what I am trying to say and just repeat the same things, including insulting stereotypes. You are so sure of the assumptions you make that when I bring up arguments against them you act like I am crazy...

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

NHL a basis for comparison? Riiiight. None of the Soviets were trained in North American style of game......often the first few waves of Soviet players were like fish out of water.
Likewise, I'm sure Cam Neely would've been just as great if he was asked to skate and weave within the soviets system.
Let's not pretend the hockey world was as globalized as it is today.


Regardless of stats, results, prep time, etc. etc., it's very easy to assess relative skill level of players and teams by simply watching a game.

Go watch Switzerland beat Canada in 2006 Olympics. Were the Swiss the better team? Yes. Did they have better players? Not in a million years.

On an individual level, Soviet players were always as good as Canadians. Why don't you WATCH some games!

Not only have I watched a lot of international hockey, but I also still play regularly. Somehow I don't think you have ever played.

 

[Zine]

Not only have I watched a lot of international hockey, but I also still play regularly. Somehow I don't think you have ever played.

"Still playing hockey regularly" doesn't mean sitting in front of the XBox. Aha!....now we know why your arguments appear to stem from fantasy land!

 

[Zine]

In all seriousness Mr Kanadensisk, you made the comment "player by player basis the Soviets were never anywhere close to Canada". In what tournaments was this evident?
Systems/practice time may help compensate for a lack of talent, but it can't mask it.....you either have great natural ability or you don't.

If Soviets were 'never anywhere close', it would have been painfully obvious regardless of practice time (particularly over a 20 year span of competition). Player-to-player, not once was the Soviet national team any less than Canada.

And using NHL production (i.e. North American game) as the measuring stick is a cop-out....particularly when mediocre NHLers like a Semenov or Semak proved to be just as good/talented as their Canadian counterparts when allowed to use their talents within a non-North American style. Better NHLer ≠ better hockey player.


And please don't respond with some insult.

 

[Peter25]

particularly when mediocre NHLers like a Semenov or Semak proved to be just as good/talented as their Canadian counterparts when allowed to use their talents within a non-North American style. Better NHLer ≠ better hockey player.

This is true. A player like Semenov was a better hockey player than, let's say, Dale Hawerchuk. It was very evident when they played against each other that Semenov had more ability and skill than Hawerchuk. Yet Hawerchuk was more productive in the NHL, because it's style suited Hawerchuk better and Hawerchuk learned to play this way.

Same can be said about Fetisov and Kasatonov vs. Bourque and Coffey. When they played against each other the Russian duo looked much better and skillful on the ice.

The only Canadian player that I would put above any Soviet in terms of skill and ability is Mario Lemieux.

Edit: Regarding Semenov, I really liked the line of Yashin-Semenov-Svetlov which played for Dynamo Moscow. My favorite in this line was Svetlov, who in his prime was a top 5 - 8 right winger in the world. Svetlov and Semenov was a great duo. Two big, rangy players with good skating and skill. Igor Larionov said in his book that there were only two lines who could play evenly against the KLM line: The Messier-Gretzky-Lemieux line in the 1987 Canada Cup and the Yashin-Semenov-Svetlov line of Dynamo Moscow. Pretty good compliment there from Larionov.

Sergei Svetlov playing against Dynamo Riga in 1981: http://visualrian.com/images/item/835530

 

[Zine]

I'd say Orr, Howe, Gretzky and Lemieux were the only players Soviets/Russia has never had an equivalent of....and that's spanning the entire history of both countries.


Regardless, yes, an interesting quote by Larionov; which is very telling because he doesn't hand out compliments lightly....especially about anything "Soviet". Also take note that both Yashin and Svetlov missed 1987 Canada Cup (Svetlov injured before the finals).