1979 Challenge Cup discussion thread

Mr Kanadensisk

Registered User
May 13, 2005
3,013
12
In the history of the human race the USSR/Russia has won the grand total of one tournament where all the competing nations were free to send their best players. Imagine the trolling and flaming we will be exposed to if they ever win a second.
 

Peter25

Registered User
Sep 20, 2003
8,491
74
Visit site
In the history of the human race the USSR/Russia has won the grand total of one tournament where all the competing nations were free to send their best players. Imagine the trolling and flaming we will be exposed to if they ever win a second.

Well, Canada did not win ANY tournament that have the following requirements

1. included the top 6 countries of hockey
2. all top 6 countries had their best teams
3. USSR was participating.
 

Mr Kanadensisk

Registered User
May 13, 2005
3,013
12
Well, Canada did not win ANY tournament that have the following requirements

1. included the top 6 countries of hockey
2. all top 6 countries had their best teams
3. USSR was participating.

My only response is please stop drinking this early in the morning.
 

Dipsy Doodle

Rent A Barn
May 28, 2006
76,532
21,073
I'm still amazed that Canadians have a nerve to call those 1984 and 1987 Canada Cups was "wins". How can you back up that Canada "won" those tournaments?

In a normal sporting event a "victory" that comes from blatant cheating and referee homerism should be disqualified.

Did Canada ever apologize the Soviet players and team about the refereeing in these tournaments?

Here comes Peter, popping his head in after avoiding the arguments from the last time he was here.

Circle of Life.
 

YMB29

Registered User
Sep 25, 2006
422
2
Talking about 1972 here. Good one. Not having Anatoli Firsov the equivalent prejudice to not having Bobby Orr and Bobby Hull. That's funny.

In any case. Firsov wasn't used because he was too old and too slow. Just like Rags Ragulin, who did play and was benched after his impression of a pylon was deemed too realistic. Who are you going to put next on the list, Starshinov?
I think Starshinov played one game.
Firsov did not play because he was upset that Tarasov was not the coach. Funny how you said he is too old but then mentioned Hull, who is 2 years older...
Davydov is also another player who could have played but did not, for the same reason as Firsov.


Talking about 1976 here. I'm also kind of sick of hearing this excuse so I am going to set the facts out and let people judge for themselves. First, the Soviets would never ice a team with a hammer and sickle and "CCCP" on the sweater that they didn't think represented their best chance of winning. If anyone was the Vince Lombardis of hockey, it was the Soviets. It was the height of the cold war and the mission was to win every time they stepped onto the ice in international play to show that communism was superior to the West. Neither the Olympics nor the WC was held in the enemy heartland, North America. This tournament was. It was important, make no mistake.
It was important, but third or fourth on the list...


They left some of their veterans at home (e.g. Mikhailov, Petrov and Yakushev -- Kharlamov was badly injured in a car accident, breaking up his unit anyway) and went instead with a group of speedy youngsters, including Balderis, Kapustin, Skvortsov, Aleksander Golikov and Alexandrov as well as young Bilyaletdinov on defence. They still had a strong core of '72 veterans including Tretiak, Lebedev, Lutchenko, Vasiliev, Gusev, Maltsev, Shalimov, Vikulov and Zhluktov to mentor the kids.

It is therefore true is that the team the Soviets iced represented a slightly different style of team, but they did so consciously; they did so only because they thought it would give them the best chance of winning at the time. There are of course rumours of a power struggle between Kulagin and Tikhonov and a revolt against the latter by the players of Mikhailov's generation but until one of the players steps forward and verifies that there was and that it was a factor in player selection they must be treated as unsubstantiated. The Soviet brass also made the usual pre-tournament disclaimers just in case the team lost, such as calling the squad "experimental" and saying the Olympics and WC were their priorities. I don't believe those for a minute... Canada also had its strongest line-up ever, so the possibility of defeat was real, whatever squad the Soviets fielded. The change in roster was in my view a move to counter the quality of the Canadian, Czech and, also relevant, Swedish squads which would now include pros playing in North America such as Salming.
Nice theory there but it just fails to make sense...
Why leave out the best players?
And why did Tikhonov use these players later, when he was the #1 national team coach?
Tikhonov confirmed in an interview that he was not allowed to use some players. He also said that he realistically expected third place with that roster.


Now listen up, Russophiles, and listen good: Canada handled the Czechs at that tournament relatively easily, winning in the final 2 games to 0, and the Czechs had just handled the Soviet team with a line-up that you could not dispute included all the best players. It therefore doesn't cut it to suggest the tournament doesn't count, especially when the national team didn't even make it to the final. It is pretty arrogant to ignore the Czechs altogether, which your line of reasoning does.
Well Canada beating Czechoslovakia at home on NHL-sized ice does not mean they could have beaten them in Europe.
Not saying the tournament does not count, every tournament does, but when talking about Soviet best vs. Canada's best it can't. If you count it then you would have to count all those World Championships where Canada sent strong but not its best teams, and where the Soviets also beat Czechoslovakia. I don't think you want to do that...


One other thing deserves mention which you never seem to remember. In alleging you didn't have your best players at this or that tournament, well that argument cuts both ways because the Soviet Union wasn't Russia. As Russia, you would not have had a bunch of players who played significant roles on those teams. Guys like Balderis for example, one the pillars of the late 70's, early 80's Soviet dynasty.
We are talking about the USSR not Russia.


Talking about 1981 now. Yes, I think what he was referring to was that Lafleur, and also Perreault by the way, were injured for much of the season and hadn't played basically all year to date.
Perreault was injured for the final, but Lafleur was not. I think he was saying both were injured.


What?? If you want specifics, go read Sinden's book on the '72 series. There's a book full of specifics. I mean, Parise had Lady Byng penalty numbers all career and he was provoked so badly he almost took the guy's head off.
That is just frustration. The games were very tense and no one wanted to get called for a penalty.


I went to several games in Canada that Dombrowski officiated. He couldn't skate, for one, being rather portly and elderly, and I often wondered how he could the play from back in other team's zone. He also looked like he was supremely indifferent to the fact there was a hockey game going on, and his calls reflected that, being more like random tweets in the space-time continuum than anything having to do with a game.
That is just your biased opinion on him. How many USSR-Canada games did he actually referee?


Baader, Kompalla were in another universe altogether in terms of incompetence, a class by themselves, a league of their own, a -- well, you get the picture. Remember that there were only two officials, period, in international play. Two. Think about how that would work today, where four competent officials still get a lot of things wrong. These two buffoons belonged to the no-contact school of hockey, whistling as an infraction anything that caused a body to fall down onto the ice. The Soviets learned fast. They had tremendous upper body strength and could take a dive whenever they needed a call. The fact that Dumb and Dumber never cottoned on to something so blatant drove the Canadians wild.
Well again this is your view of it. They did not call the game like NHL referees, but that does not make them incompetent.
Most of the complaining seems to be just whining out of frustration (like here).


If when we were watching a game with the Soviets we saw a Canadian player suddenly and seemingly without provocation go nuts on a Soviet, we knew what had just happened. The unpunished spearing and butt-ending by his Soviet check all the way down the ice had just driven the Canadian over the edge.
And you are not going to mention that a Canadian player usually did something to get that kind of a response...


I am surprised that those of you who are not beneath attacking NHL officials as corrupt would when the shoe is on the other foot defend officials such as these bozos who were so demonstrably incompetent even apart from any question of whether they were corrupt.
So it is better to be corrupt than incompetent?


I have to disagree with your premise here. The Soviet teams that played NHL teams were club teams in name only. As a matter of substance, they were various iterations of the national team. CSKA was basically the national team with some deletions (e.g., Yakushev, Maltsev), and Wings of the Soviet was comprised of those national team members that had been so split off and the other elements of the national team or players that were rotated onto and off the national team: think Soviet Union A and Soviet Union B.
In 76 some players from other Soviet teams played for CSKA and Soviet Wings for the series, like Yakushev and Vasiliev, but you can't call them national team A and B.


For that reason alone, results in games against these Soviet "club" teams must be taken with a large grain of salt. Another factor that must be considered is that the NHL club teams of that era were heavily diluted both by rapid expansion and by the WHA. The caliber of play below the top teams like Montreal and Philadelphia fell off steeply. Several of the Soviets' opponents were expansion teams that still hadn't fought their way out of the league basement. Any notion of parity among NHL club teams was at that time wishful thinking.
These games were not only played in the late 70's.
And again it is not like the Soviet teams were winning only against the lower ranked NHL teams.


As far as I know this is the only time a North American club team ever defeated the Soviet Union national team, as this was virtually the only series in which the Soviets put the Soviet Union national team so named against club competition in North America.
In 1983 the Soviet national team played against NHL clubs.


In 1979, the WHA adopted an All-Star game format whereby it pit its All-Stars against Moscow Dynamo. In a much-hyped three-game series, the WHA All-Stars swept all three All-Star games against Dynamo. The games were really fast-paced and skilled affairs. WHA club teams also won 2 of 3 exhibition games against Dynamo for a total of 5 wins and 1 loss in favour of the WHA.
It was Dynamo Moscow without its best players plus some secondary CSKA players, so more like Dynamo-B.


These games were cash cows for a cash-starved Soviet program.
Cash starved??


In 1973 I went to a game between CSKA and the Toronto Marlboros, the Maple Leafs' junior team, at a packed Maple Leaf Gardens. Again, this was no club team: everybody, and I mean everybody, was on that Soviet side -- it was essentially the Summit Series roster.
I would like to see the Soviet roster.


The games against WHA club teams set above demonstrate the relative parity between Soviet and WHA club teams in meaningful (i.e. points producing) competition, which in my view represents a much better barometer for comparison than the pure exhibition games against NHL club teams.
...
As it was, they only held their own against the WHA teams and lost convincingly to the All-Stars, just as WHA club teams -- except for the Jets -- lost convincingly to the Soviet national team aka Big Red Machine.
Dynamo Moscow is the only Soviet club team to play WHA teams and it was missing its best players, so I don't know if you can make that conclusion...
 

YMB29

Registered User
Sep 25, 2006
422
2
In the history of the human race the USSR/Russia has won the grand total of one tournament where all the competing nations were free to send their best players. Imagine the trolling and flaming we will be exposed to if they ever win a second.
Still repeating the same silly things when you have nothing else to say?
You are doing a good job flaming and trolling yourself...
 

Yakushev72

Registered User
Dec 27, 2010
4,550
372
Yakushev 72

Don't blame Hammerweilder and Kanandeinsk, they are just repeating the stereotypical canned statements that the Canadian media repeated over and over again in the 1970's and 1980's. Admittedly, it was harder and took more effort to research the Soviet hockey system than it did the Boston Bruins or Philadelphia Flyers, so they took the lazy way out and resorted to repeating stereotypical jingoisms that helped to ease the fans gently back to Earth after having the bubble of hockey supremacy burst by the Sovietsin the 1970's. They earned their keep by arming their fans with a laundry list of excuses to explain away losses or close calls that they had been led to believe would never happen.

Red Fisher, Canada's top sportswriter for the Montreal Star, made the prediction that Canada would win all eight games of the '72 series by at least 10 goals, or he would eat his column in borscht. He was true to his pledge, but it shows the mentality of where Canadians assessed their standing prior to the Series of the Century.
 

Yakushev72

Registered User
Dec 27, 2010
4,550
372
Yakushev 72

YMB29,

Thank you for using your comprehensive knowledge of Soviet hockey history to set the record straight on numerous false statements that have been made.
 

SMoneyMonkey

Registered User
Dec 7, 2009
2,506
0
LA/MTL
USSR/Russian hockey was and is great. It's a pity so much of it is ignored because whenever it is brought up certain posters distract from the topic by whining about other events.


The '79 Challenge was a big victory for the Soviets, as to whether preparation played a part, I'd say yes, it definitely did. I don't think it was the biggest factor but, to claim it didn't play a part at all is silly. To use it as an excuse is just as silly.
 

Aaaaaaaaaaaaa

Registered User
May 16, 2009
12,252
1,585
It's funny how every real hockey brain in Canada back then starting by the very best and intelligent players Orr and Gretzky admitted that Canadian Hockey was backward and needing to learn from the Soviets about skills skating passing conditionning etc... The "heart" was there yes but most of the time this was used for injuring players and winning ugly without any sort of glory or credibility...

First, that is an exaggeration of the truth.

Second, Orr and Gretzky did not know about the state-sanctioned doping that was going on in the Eastern Bloc at the time. If they had known, they would not have wanted any part of it.
 

McGuillicuddy

Registered User
Sep 6, 2005
1,296
198
Wow...some of you in this thread..just wow.

I'll be the first to admit that we (Canada) have our share of homers who can't give any other country their due when we lose. Sometimes I feel that way (like I did last Wednesday) until I let my emotions come down and actually think about what happened. However, this is the first time I have seen so many crazy Russian/Soviet homers come out of the woodwork at once. You guys have easily put a lot of the usual Canadian homers to shame. Whining, crying and blaming every loss on anything but losing to a better team does not become you.

Canada vs. USSR is a great debate. The reason it's a great debate is because it is close enough to be arguable on both sides. Canada has the strength of numbers having won most of the 'best-on-best' tournaments with fairly hastily constructed teams. USSR has some periods of dominance and the confounding factors of almost never playing at home, and playing with referees that put the whistles away in the 3rd period.

For those of you who would say that this debate isn't even close you are clearly off the mark. If it wasn't close then you wouldn't have so many people arguing both sides so passionately. If it was just a matter of homerism then you'd have just as many Czechs/Swedes/Americans claiming to be the equal of Canadian or USSR hockey, but obviously that doesn't happen because the debate wouldn't even be close.

And finally, to whomever it was that declared the 87 Canada Cup final a 5-6, 6-5, 3-0 victory for the USSR? Idiot. Man up and accept that sometimes you lose. 1987 was one of those times.
 

Dipsy Doodle

Rent A Barn
May 28, 2006
76,532
21,073
And finally, to whomever it was that declared the 87 Canada Cup final a 5-6, 6-5, 3-0 victory for the USSR? Idiot. Man up and accept that sometimes you lose. 1987 was one of those times.

You don't understand. There's a video of cherry-picked "penalties" and "non-penalties" that proves it unequivocally.
 

Aaaaaaaaaaaaa

Registered User
May 16, 2009
12,252
1,585
You don't understand. There's a video of cherry-picked "penalties" and "non-penalties" that proves it unequivocally.

Could not agreee more.

On youtube, I watched a video with talking cats. Pretty funny, but using youtube videos as a reliable source in order to prove a point exemplifies weakeness. I, like you, am not saying the videos were faked, but they were definitely cherry-picked.
 

hammerwielder

Registered User
Jan 6, 2008
205
0
Canada
Firsov did not play because he was upset that Tarasov was not the coach. Funny how you said he is too old but then mentioned Hull, who is 2 years older...

That was not the principal reason. Firsov may have made that claim but the reality was he had tried to go to the NHL in 1968 after his dominating performance at Grenoble and there were repercussions to him for having done so in the Soviet system. Secondly, by 1972 he had entered the twilight of his career -- his production had fallen dramatically and in recognition of that the Soviet apparatus had thrown the torch to Kharlamov at the Sapporo Olympics. Third, the Soviets at that time deemed a player too old to play on the national team by the time he reached his late twenties. Hull did not play in '72. The Soviets began to rethink their premise when they saw how effective players such as Howe and Hull were in '74, among others.

It was important, but third or fourth on the list... Nice theory there but it just fails to make sense...
Why leave out the best players?
And why did Tikhonov use these players later, when he was the #1 national team coach?
Tikhonov confirmed in an interview that he was not allowed to use some players. He also said that he realistically expected third place with that roster. ... Not saying the tournament does not count, every tournament does, but when talking about Soviet best vs. Canada's best it can't. If you count it then you would have to count all those World Championships where Canada sent strong but not its best teams, and where the Soviets also beat Czechoslovakia. I don't think you want to do that...

Winning in North America against North American teams was such a priority to the Soviets that when they sent club teams to play there, for example, they invariably had reinforcements. While it is true the WC and Olympics were their Stanley Cup, regardless of what the talk that they talked about the North American tournaments was, the walk that they walked was to seek to avoid a level playing field at every turn. With respect to the 1976 tournament, don't forget that this was the first best on best multi-nation tournament ever held and the first game for the Soviets against NHL players since the Summit Series. To suggest this tournament was of little importance to the Soviets and to the state propaganda apparatus is really a stretch. They almost couldn't afford to lose because to so would explode the myth of Soviet hockey supremacy. It seems many Russian posters here are still trying to desperately hold onto that Cold War line even though the Cold War has been over for 20 years and surely the time has come for a more objective and fair appraisal of the facts.

The Soviets had their best players available for this tournament, regardless of what Tikhonov might have said ex post facto. It is indisputable that the Soviets were going up against the world's best, unlike at the Olympics and WC, and they knew it. If what you are saying is that they sent a second-rate team over and not a team they thought represented their best chance of winning, then it could be argued that they feared they might well lose again with their "best" lineup and therefore sent an inferior team to give them a ready excuse when they lost. I am not saying they did that because the Soviet mindset as far as I could see would never have done so, indeed they were prepared to do almost anything in negotiations to get the so-called unfair advantage and give them the best chance of winning. Not to say that the other teams didn't try to do that too but the Soviets were past masters at it. Remember also that the Soviets loved to play mind games with their opposition as part of their strategic approach. Consider, for example, their mantra in '72 before and during the first part of the series: "We're just amateurs, we have come to learn from the great Canadian pros", when they didn't believe that for a minute. In my view, what they said at the '76 tournament amounted to the same type of thing. Contemporary press reports at the time before the tournament reported from interviews with their brass that they had made a conscious decision to send a younger team with blazing speed. When you consider that the Kharlamov-Maltsev-Anisin team had lost in the '72 series, the Canadian team in '76 was a much stronger team than the '72 edition and the Czechs had also just beaten a very similar Soviet roster at the WC, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Soviets might have wanted to try a lineup with a different complexion for their '76 team. Teams make adjustments all the time after analyzing a loss. That seems to me a more reasonable and objective explanation than something the Soviets might have said for public consumption either to position themselves as an underdog or excuse their performance later.

Well Canada beating Czechoslovakia at home on NHL-sized ice does not mean they could have beaten them in Europe.

With respect, that is a tired old argument that is not supported by the evidence. While it is true that most of the best on best games were in North American, in the ones that were played in the Soviet Union Canada did even better than they did on NHL ice. In '72, Canada won only 1 game on NHL ice against 3 on the big ice. A dog-tired, hung-over '72 team tied the Czech national team in Prague. When the Winnipeg Jets played Soviet club teams in the USSR, they won 2 of 3. There are many other examples.
 

McGuillicuddy

Registered User
Sep 6, 2005
1,296
198
It's almost a shame that Gretzky's parents left Belarus... Imagine him with those CCCP jerseys! Right now hockey would probably be just as obscure a sport in Canada as it is now in the US...

Oh wow. How did I miss this little nugget of awesome.

First of all, only Gretzky's paternal grandparents were Belarussian. Walter was born in Canada and learned to play hockey in Canada. His mother was Canadian of British ancestry.

Second, what I'm smelling here from you is an implication that Gretzky having some Belarussian ancestry somehow validates your opinion of some sort of racial Soviet superiority. That is patently ridiculous and a gross perversion of the truth.

It's quite likely that in your bizarro-reality where a Gretzky is born in Belarus that this child never even has the opportunity to become a hockey superstar. It is in Canada where a modest telephone repairman could afford to own a home, to build a backyard rink, and to nurture his son's passion for the game they both love.
 

Anderson9

Registered User
Apr 11, 2009
317
2
Kazan, Russia
Yes they and I admire the Gretzky Coffey Savard etc. What they didn't admire was the Clarke-Koharski-Eagleson...

1972 the thing people forget was that by game 6 USSR was leading 3-1-1 and were one toe-win away from winning it. It's 100% proven that at least 2 Canadians guys conspired and committed the crime of injuring the best Soviet player on purpose during this game 6 putting him out of the series.

Sure you could look at it as a victory(1972) but OBJECTIVELY no one with Dignity and Price(as Cherry likes too say) would say that. Canada was suppose to win all 8 games or at worst 7 games and actually it came down to you injuring on purpose the best player in game 6 when you were CLEARLY DOWN FOR THE PIN...

1972= Travesty. Soviet won in most people objective view.

1974 we won vs. your B team. 1976 you won vs. our B team.

1979 we completely owned you just like in 1981.

1984 you won I'll say it fairly but in a very close OT game.

1987 in the best hockey ever we were leading 3-0 in the final game before Koharski-Eagleson took over so we won.

We won by a good margin the all time NHL-Soviet club teams series.

The 1980's U20 were almost 50/50 so that was a good split. And I say I consider 1987Piestany a Canada Gold.

RDV87 in QuebecCity was a good tie.

Meanwhile we own Olympics and Worlds before you could send some of your best. But we actually won most of the 80's Worlds when Canada sent AMAZING teams many years.

All in All I say USSR dominance can't be argued objectively againts.

But unlike others I can acknowledge what was great about Canadian Hockey then but I sure don't turn a blind eye to those who were there to sabotage hockey and fair play...

That's why you should never forget that in no other sport or country someone would have selective memory and would try to tell you without lying that they consider playing 80% at home with home refs and everything isn't as close to fixing sports(wrestling) as it comes...

Canada is #1 now but they were a good #2 before.

Watching this game one can easily see momentum swinging Canada's way slowly but surely in the 2nd session, the likes of Sutter, Hawerchuck et al taking over while the Soviet 4th line still stayed vastly incospicuous. Well yes! USSR did tie the score midway through the 3rd, only to give up a logical GWG on a breakaway. It's only slightly tainted by Hawerchuk downing Bykov not cleanly enough, but believe me no official in the world would have whistled for a penalty in any side's favor in the dying minutes of regulation time with so much on the line.
 

Zine

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
11,958
1,774
Rostov-on-Don
That was not the principal reason. Firsov may have made that claim but the reality was he had tried to go to the NHL in 1968 after his dominating performance at Grenoble and there were repercussions to him for having done so in the Soviet system. Secondly, by 1972 he had entered the twilight of his career -- his production had fallen dramatically and in recognition of that the Soviet apparatus had thrown the torch to Kharlamov at the Sapporo Olympics. Third, the Soviets at that time deemed a player too old to play on the national team by the time he reached his late twenties. Hull did not play in '72. The Soviets began to rethink their premise when they saw how effective players such as Howe and Hull were in '74, among others.

link?

All evidence points to the fact he was contacted by the NHL.....however, that is substantially different than claiming he tried to go to the NHL.
And even if true, it's not relevant to the Summit Series omission because there were no repercussions. Firsov remained on national team for 4 more years following 1968 olympics.
 
Last edited:

Theokritos

Global Moderator
Apr 6, 2010
12,538
4,911
what I'm smelling here from you is an implication that Gretzky having some Belarussian ancestry somehow validates your opinion of some sort of racial Soviet superiority. That is patently ridiculous and a gross perversion of the truth.

The lunatic homerism in this thread bugges me as much as you, but you really shouldn't have brought up this point. Not even the worst Soviet homer has suggested anything related to racial superiority. Reading this into Pushkin's "nugget" is really unfair and reprehensible. Your other arguments are well-founded, but this one is as useful as a hole in the head. And there are already far too many holes in this thread!


I'll be the first to admit that we (Canada) have our share of homers who can't give any other country their due when we lose. Sometimes I feel that way (like I did last Wednesday) until I let my emotions come down and actually think about what happened...
Canada vs. USSR is a great debate. The reason it's a great debate is because it is close enough to be arguable on both sides...
For those of you who would say that this debate isn't even close you are clearly off the mark. If it wasn't close then you wouldn't have so many people arguing both sides so passionately. If it was just a matter of homerism then you'd have just as many Czechs/Swedes/Americans claiming to be the equal of Canadian or USSR hockey, but obviously that doesn't happen because the debate wouldn't even be close.

Great post, a model of soundness and reasonability, sorely missed in so many other contributions here.

That was not the principal reason. Firsov may have made that claim but the reality was he had tried to go to the NHL in 1968 after his dominating performance at Grenoble and there were repercussions to him for having done so in the Soviet system.

Source? I'd love to read about it.

With respect to the 1976 tournament...They almost couldn't afford to lose because to so would explode the myth of Soviet hockey supremacy...

I doubt that this myth already existed back then. The Soviets lost the 1972 Summit against the NHL, won the 1974 Summit against the WHA - how could they've been tempted to claim superiority over the NHL? Is there any indication that they considered themselves superior?

the Soviet mindset as far as I could see would never have done so, indeed they were prepared to do almost anything in negotiations to get the so-called unfair advantage and give them the best chance of winning. Not to say that the other teams didn't try to do that too but the Soviets were past masters at it.

Well, playing an entire tournament in Canada certainly wasn't advantageous for the Soviets: no home ice, no IIHF referees, unlike the Summit Series. Nevertheless, the Soviets faced the challenge.
 

Uncle Rotter

Registered User
May 11, 2010
5,974
1,037
Kelowna, B.C.
Well Canada beating Czechoslovakia at home on NHL-sized ice does not mean they could have beaten them in Europe.
Actually, Canada would meet the Czechs in Vienna the next spring in the final game of the World Championships. Canada had a chance to win Bronze, the Czechs a chance to win Gold. Canada won 8-2
 

YMB29

Registered User
Sep 25, 2006
422
2
Second, Orr and Gretzky did not know about the state-sanctioned doping that was going on in the Eastern Bloc at the time. If they had known, they would not have wanted any part of it.
Please tell us more about this "state-sanctioned" doping, especially in hockey.



this is the first time I have seen so many crazy Russian/Soviet homers come out of the woodwork at once. You guys have easily put a lot of the usual Canadian homers to shame. Whining, crying and blaming every loss on anything but losing to a better team does not become you.
If it was really about losing to a better team then no one would be complaining.


USSR has some periods of dominance and the confounding factors of almost never playing at home, and playing with referees that put the whistles away in the 3rd period.
Well that is putting it mildly...


For those of you who would say that this debate isn't even close you are clearly off the mark. If it wasn't close then you wouldn't have so many people arguing both sides so passionately. If it was just a matter of homerism then you'd have just as many Czechs/Swedes/Americans claiming to be the equal of Canadian or USSR hockey, but obviously that doesn't happen because the debate wouldn't even be close.
Yes I agree with that.


Man up and accept that sometimes you lose. 1987 was one of those times.
Yes but for this debate it matters how a team loses.



On youtube, I watched a video with talking cats. Pretty funny, but using youtube videos as a reliable source in order to prove a point exemplifies weakeness. I, like you, am not saying the videos were faked, but they were definitely cherry-picked.
Well what do you want? No video evidence at all? Complaining about referees without evidence is just whining.
Cherry-picked? Well you can say that about any game highlights... But those videos do show important parts of those games.



That was not the principal reason. Firsov may have made that claim but the reality was he had tried to go to the NHL in 1968 after his dominating performance at Grenoble and there were repercussions to him for having done so in the Soviet system.
First time I hear of this... Where did you get that?


Secondly, by 1972 he had entered the twilight of his career -- his production had fallen dramatically and in recognition of that the Soviet apparatus had thrown the torch to Kharlamov at the Sapporo Olympics. Third, the Soviets at that time deemed a player too old to play on the national team by the time he reached his late twenties.
I did not say that he was the best Soviet player, but no doubt he could have really helped.


Winning in North America against North American teams was such a priority to the Soviets that when they sent club teams to play there, for example, they invariably had reinforcements.
Well in 76 they had reinforcements, but later, as far as I know, they had replacements, like Shepelev taking Larionov's spot in the 86 series.


While it is true the WC and Olympics were their Stanley Cup, regardless of what the talk that they talked about the North American tournaments was, the walk that they walked was to seek to avoid a level playing field at every turn.
Really? I can make the same claim about Canada.


With respect to the 1976 tournament...
They almost couldn't afford to lose because to so would explode the myth of Soviet hockey supremacy.
So much so that they left their best players at home...


It is indisputable that the Soviets were going up against the world's best, unlike at the Olympics and WC, and they knew it.
Well the only real difference was that Canada had its best players.


If what you are saying is that they sent a second-rate team over and not a team they thought represented their best chance of winning, then it could be argued that they feared they might well lose again with their "best" lineup and therefore sent an inferior team to give them a ready excuse when they lost. I am not saying they did that because the Soviet mindset as far as I could see would never have done so, indeed they were prepared to do almost anything in negotiations to get the so-called unfair advantage and give them the best chance of winning. Not to say that the other teams didn't try to do that too but the Soviets were past masters at it.
Again this is just your biased speculation.


Contemporary press reports at the time before the tournament reported from interviews with their brass that they had made a conscious decision to send a younger team with blazing speed.
Well yes they wanted to give younger players a chance, as well as players who have for a long time played for team USSR-B; that is why the team was called experimental.


it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Soviets might have wanted to try a lineup with a different complexion for their '76 team. Teams make adjustments all the time after analyzing a loss. That seems to me a more reasonable and objective explanation than something the Soviets might have said for public consumption either to position themselves as an underdog or excuse their performance later.
When a coach makes an adjustment to try something new in order to win the next few games, he does not just get rid of his best players...


With respect, that is a tired old argument that is not supported by the evidence. While it is true that most of the best on best games were in North American, in the ones that were played in the Soviet Union Canada did even better than they did on NHL ice. In '72, Canada won only 1 game on NHL ice against 3 on the big ice.
Well the 74 team did not do better in the USSR...
You can't just go by the 72 series.


When the Winnipeg Jets played Soviet club teams in the USSR, they won 2 of 3. There are many other examples.
When was that?



It's quite likely that in your bizarro-reality where a Gretzky is born in Belarus that this child never even has the opportunity to become a hockey superstar. It is in Canada where a modest telephone repairman could afford to own a home, to build a backyard rink, and to nurture his son's passion for the game they both love.
Is ice that hard to afford?
In the USSR playing hockey was mostly free, but the game's popularity was of course much lower than in Canada.



Watching this game one can easily see momentum swinging Canada's way slowly but surely in the 2nd session, the likes of Sutter, Hawerchuck et al taking over
Yes with holding and hooking...


It's only slightly tainted by Hawerchuk downing Bykov not cleanly enough, but believe me no official in the world would have whistled for a penalty in any side's favor in the dying minutes of regulation time with so much on the line.
Well an NHL official had no problems calling a suspect penalty on the Soviets in overtime in the 1984 semi-final game...
 
Last edited:

YMB29

Registered User
Sep 25, 2006
422
2
Actually, Canada would meet the Czechs in Vienna the next spring in the final game of the World Championships. Canada had a chance to win Bronze, the Czechs a chance to win Gold. Canada won 8-2
Yes there were some weird results from that World Championships tournament, but I meant that the Canada Cup Czechoslovak team would have had a better chance to win against Canada if the games were played in Europe. I mean two of the three games between them in that Canada Cup were very close.
 

hammerwielder

Registered User
Jan 6, 2008
205
0
Canada
link?

All evidence points to the fact he was contacted by the NHL.....however, that is substantially different than claiming he tried to go to the NHL.
And even if true, it's not relevant to the Summit Series omission because there were no repercussions. Firsov remained on national team for 4 more years following 1968 olympics.

Source? I'd love to read about it.

http://digitalhistory.concordia.ca/courses/hist306f07/projects/jbabalis/hockey.html

from Sports in the Cold War:

"Anatoly Firsov experienced the downside of being a Soviet athlete. In the 1970s, he was approached by several North American scouts offering him employment in the NHL. He was interested in accepting and therefore, by requesting permission to go abroad, or defecting, he was punished ... . 6 Due to this incident the skilled athlete did not participate in the 1972 Summit Series.

6 - Jokisipila, Markku. "Maple Leaf, Hammer, and Sickle: International Ice Hockey During the Cold War." Sport History Review. 37 (2006): 46."

http://internationalhockeylegends.blogspot.com/2008/06/anatoli-firsov.html

From Greatest Hockey Legends.com:

"Many years after it happened, stories were revealed that Firsov may have contacted Larry Regan in 1968. Regan was then the general manager of the Los Angeles Kings and they were holding discussions concerning Firsov's defection from the Soviet Union and playing in the National Hockey League. The arrangement fell through, as it is believed Russian authorities must have learned of this possibility. In the supressed Communist Soviet Union, the story [had] never been revealed until Gorabechev's Glasnost."
...
"In all fairness, by the time 1972 rolled around, Firsov was near the end of his career and was not the dominant player in Soviet hockey at that time. The torch had been handed to Valeri Kharlamov earlier in 1972 as Kharlamov led the Red Army to Olympic gold. The Soviets believed that young hockey players were better because of their fitness level and biological clock, and almost as a rule would retire hockey players in their early 30s. That changed after the 1972 and 1974 Summit Series after they saw first hand the greatness Canadian aging stars like Gary Bergman or Gordie Howe. Perhaps if Tarasov had been the Soviet coach for the Summit Series, Firsov would have been included."

Firsov played at the Sapporo Olympics in 1972, but scored only 2 goals out of the 40 scored by the team. In addition, his scoring production had fallen dramatically, having scored only 17 goals in 1971-72 vs. 41 in his prime. Hull, on the other hand, had scored 50 goals in 1971-72, second only to Esposito, and Orr had scored 37 goals as a defenceman (!) and finished 2nd to Esposito in scoring with 117 points and a +46. To say that Firsov would have made the difference that Hull and Orr combined would have is untenable (I'm not saying you are saying this, but others are); indeed on merit it is justifiable to conclude that he had not played his way onto the team both on the basis of league play and his performance at the 1972 Olympics compared to the other available forwards who did play. For Bobrov not to have gone with the best available best players when he knew that Brezhnev would be in the stands for every game would have been kind of suicidal.

Finally, I would draw to our attention the fact that all CSKA players were Red Army officers and a refusal to play on the part of any of them would have constituted insubordination.
 

Uncle Rotter

Registered User
May 11, 2010
5,974
1,037
Kelowna, B.C.
Last edited:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->