1979 Challenge Cup discussion thread

[Mr Kanadensisk]

More info (video, news articles, quotes) is needed from 1967-1968 all-star games to make any logical comparison. It's too simplistic and unscientific to base any in-depth comparison on results only (particularly that of an all-star game)....and particularly if the comparison is made between two unrelated teams from different eras.


Were 1967-68 games played with the same intensity as the Challenge Cup?
Did they they have political overtones surrounding them?
Was there an intrinsic "East-West" level of hatred between both sides?
Did an all-star team member call the 1967-68 games more important than the Stanley Cup?

Regardless, those teams weren't even true NHL-all star teams as they were missing numerous all-stars from the Leafs and Habs.

This era predates me but I have heard that the All-Star games were much more intense with this old format. You can see in the game summaries that there were penalties such as kneeing and roughing which suggest a level of intensity not seen in todays all-star games. You can see that an opportunity for the Cup champs to beat an All-Star team and vice versa makes for a challenging game.

However for example in 1968 the Leafs beat an NHL All-Star team comprised of players from the 11 other teams in the league. While the Leafs were the reigning champs in the 67-68 season they finished in 5th place, so they were hardly a power house. The Leafs didn't even have close to the combined talent of the other 11 teams, yet they still won. This is another very good example of how critical preparation time is.

 

[Zine]

This era predates me but I have heard that the All-Star games were much more intense with this old format. You can see in the game summaries that there were penalties such as kneeing and roughing which suggest a level of intensity not seen in todays all-star games. You can see that an opportunity for the Cup champs to beat an All-Star team and vice versa makes for a challenging game.

However for example in 1968 the Leafs beat an NHL All-Star team comprised of players from the 11 other teams in the league. While the Leafs were the reigning champs in the 67-68 season they finished in 5th place, so they were hardly a power house. The Leafs didn't even have close to the combined talent of the other 11 teams, yet they still won. This is another very good example of how critical preparation time is.

With only a box score as info., how can you come to such a conclusion? You're not drawing a conclusion as much as you're making an assumption.

Making an assumption myself, but I seriously doubt the intensity level and importance of an all-star game resembled anything close to that of a NHL/Canada/Soviet national team series; particularly circa 1979.

Like I said before, there is a degree of truth to your 'prep-time' POV; however it certainly isn't the advantage (i.e. excuse) you make it out to be.....especially in 1979 when Soviets were forced into using obscure line combos which nullified any existing chemistry.

 

[Yakushev72]

Yakushev 72

With only a box score as info., how can you come to such a conclusion? You're not drawing a conclusion as much as you're making an assumption.

Making an assumption myself, but I seriously doubt the intensity level and importance of an all-star game resembled anything close to that of a NHL/Canada/Soviet national team series; particularly circa 1979.

Like I said before, there is a degree of truth to your 'prep-time' POV; however it certainly isn't the advantage (i.e. excuse) you make it out to be.....especially in 1979 when Soviets were forced into using obscure line combos which nullified any existing chemistry.

I watched portions of Game 2 on February 10, 1979, and then I drove 100 miles to watch Game 3 the next day in a motel. Of course, I have DVD's of all three games now. In comparing the Challenge Cup to the numerous all-star games I've seen on TV, there is no comparison at all, in my opinion. Unlike all-star games, which are really more like light scrimmages with a gentleman's agreement for no checking, the Challenge Cup was one of the most intense and fiercely fought hockey events of all time. I never saw a Soviet team hit so hard before or since.

Zine's quote from Bowman captures the degree to which the Canadians were awestruck and stunned by the intensity of the Soviet effort. I had watched Soviet hockey for years before the Challenge Cup, but I had never seen the Soviets play with so much hunger before. After Game 1, they won every battle and picked up every loose puck. They painted a masterpiece at Madison Square Garden that February, and it left the NHL establishment in a bit of a panic.

 

[YMB29]

The disapearance of the Soviet hockey star after '89 was one of the best magic tricks of all time. Even Houdini would have been jealous. I'm sure Canada was to blame for it. Any theories? Maybe our government got to them some how....

What are you talking about? You mean players who could not adjust and make it in the NHL?

Are you seriously trying to deny that the Soviets used doping??!!! Even Larionov admitted that they didn't know what was injected into their bodies and they weren't supposed to ask either.

There is some vague reference from Larionov to some injection that he supposedly refused, but nothing else. He first mentioned it in his open letter in which he made lots of sensational accusations against Tikhonov. He then later mentioned it again in his book and then got sued by the Russian Hockey Federation. It is not clear how that ended. If that is certain proof for you...

Not to mention that USA never had a state sponsored doping program unlike the Eastern bloc countries.

How do you know if the US government sponsored it or not? Or if other Eastern block countries, besides East Germany, sponsored it or not? You are just making silly assumptions just like some other posters here.
Even if assuming this is true, does it really matter if doping is state sponsored or privately sponsored?

This was always a group of collegiate amateurs, yet they did strikingly well against elite-level competition from the major hockey powers -- Sweden, the CSSR, the USSR, grabbing the bronze on several occasions.

At the time hockey in Europe was only at the Canadian amateur level.

I am prepared to concede that the Soviets, for whatever reason, probably did not its best players to the 1976 Canada Cup. We can have raging debates as to why that was so -- and it seems reasonable to assume it did have something to do with dissatisfaction as to the performance of the regular roster in previous 1976 international competition, whether or not the roster was called "experimental" -- but even so it was still the national team that had a core of players who had played and practiced for a long time with the national team. Canada's team was, as it has always been, thrown together just for the tournament and as quickly disbanded.

The Canada Cup teams were not just thrown together... You are undervaluing the readiness of the Canadian teams and overvaluing it for the Soviets.

In my view, not having a national team was an equal disadvantage to any other factor relating to players left off the Soviet roster. This point has been proven time and again in the post-Soviet era when Russian teams with incredible star quality have performed poorly as a team. Team play is as crucial to success as the quality of the individual players on the roster.

Russian players playing poorly as a team is not just about them not playing and practicing together like before. You are simplifying the problem.
Russia's Olympic and World Championship teams last year consisted of many players who had significant playing and practice time together over the last few World Championships, and that did not help...

The game in Tampere was very close, even despite Canada’s lousy power play. The game in Helsinki was closer still. Basically, here there’s no arguing the fact that the slightly better team won.

I would not say slightly...

Files declassified in post Soviet Russia? Wish you could hear yourself…

So your "known facts" are based on some supposed files that are classified in Russia?

The very fact that he took up coaching a Top division soccer team was symptomatic of some delusion-like fantasies even in 1975.

I was asking about his hockey coaching.

He was Kremlin-paid. He was either a left wing ****wit enamoured with the idea of dictatorship of the proletariat, or a cynic whose money "has no smell".

And so the people working for Voice of America were not paid by the US government and not enamored with the ideas of bourgeois democracy and exploitative capitalism?

Yes I am. Americans were occasionally caught cheating, failing several drugs tests, which only goes to show mismanaged USA Olympic teams were basically dwarves compared to colossi. By contrast, not a single DDR/CCCP athlete was ever caught using drugs, less experienced one-aloners from other teams were.

Poor US loners going up against state machines...
One can make many assumptions based on this, like that such drug use was much more widespread among US athletes so they got caught much more...

Oh come on, don’t play dumb. Their overall medal count in 1972 – 1988 is what gave me the idea. Go check. W. Germany, for instance, used to win a meager quarter of the amount of East German medals. In a similar way, the US, stood no chance against both sporting empires. Except for working several miracles, not on ice alone.

I am not only talking about the Winter Olympics.
Sure it is suspicious when a small country like East Germany wins so much medals, but the USSR was not a small country.

As for those lopsided scores, those were known to be simply blowouts, disasters. The fact that they crapped the bed in both USSR games takes nothing away from their classy game vs. Sweden and in both times against Czechoslovakia.

Well it looks like all of the top four teams in that tournament played inconsistently.

And one necessary addition.

YMB27, you basically nitpick, you niggle in order to throw your opponent off balance. You get petty in an attempt to run your opposition ragged and bleed them white. All you basically do is Kris Draper it up to take the opponent's focus off their larger goal. In hockey and other team sports, it pays often. In discussion forums, it only pleases your fellow homers.

So me asking you to back up your wild claims and generalizations is nitpicking?

The Soviets, on the other hand, prepared for the series by training for several weeks in the Netherlands, where they lived on New York time and practiced on a surface that was tailored to the specifications of the rink at Madison Square Garden.

Was this rumor ever verified?

 

[hammerwielder]

At the time hockey in Europe was only at the Canadian amateur level.

I don't think so. The Soviet team the Canadian collegiate players faced in 1969, for example, included Firsov, Yakushev, Maltsev, Kharlamov, Petrov, Mikhailov, Vikulov -- should I go on? And that team lost both of its games to Czechoslovakia.

The Canada Cup teams were not just thrown together... You are undervaluing the readiness of the Canadian teams and overvaluing it for the Soviets.

I was talking about the Challenge Cup team. The Canada Cup team got perhaps two exhibition games under its belt immediately before the tournament started and then usually played its first game against Finland, which was kind of a warm-up game in those days. It is beyond argument that the Canada Cup teams were one-off teams of extremely short duration. You simply can't compare that to the Soviet National Team, which was a year-round operation and a continuous entity.

And so the people working for Voice of America were not paid by the US government and not enamored with the ideas of bourgeois democracy and exploitative capitalism?

My goodness, do we have a Communist holdover here? I hate to break it to you, but Russia joined the ranks of "bourgeois democracy and exploitative capitalism" about, um, twenty years ago.

Was this rumor ever verified?

I didn't present it as a "rumor", it was referred to as fact by Sinden in his column written contemporaneously to the event. You would have to take up any concerns about its accuracy with him.

 

[Yakushev72]

Yakushev 72

I don't think so. The Soviet team the Canadian collegiate players faced in 1969, for example, included Firsov, Yakushev, Maltsev, Kharlamov, Petrov, Mikhailov, Vikulov -- should I go on? And that team lost both of its games to Czechoslovakia.



I was talking about the Challenge Cup team. The Canada Cup team got perhaps two exhibition games under its belt immediately before the tournament started and then usually played its first game against Finland, which was kind of a warm-up game in those days. It is beyond argument that the Canada Cup teams were one-off teams of extremely short duration. You simply can't compare that to the Soviet National Team, which was a year-round operation and a continuous entity.



My goodness, do we have a Communist holdover here? I hate to break it to you, but Russia joined the ranks of "bourgeois democracy and exploitative capitalism" about, um, twenty years ago.



I didn't present it as a "rumor", it was referred to as fact by Sinden in his column written contemporaneously to the event. You would have to take up any concerns about its accuracy with him.

The excuse that "we got beat because the Soviets play together all year (note: not true - they only played together during breaks in their league schedule), and we didn't," has no merit. Lack of conditioning could have been a reasonable excuse, but the Challenge Cup was played in mid-February. In the Challenge Cup, as has been mentioned, Scotty Bownman kept existing NHL lines together (e.g., Bossy-Trottier-Gillies), but even if that weren't true, being thrown together is an insignificant disadvantage for NHL teams, who all play exactly alike. The NHL style is virtually identical across the league. Teams play a dump, chase and forecheck style, so if you are traded from the Islanders to the Canucks, you can step out on the ice the next day and play the exact same system you played yesterday, with little or no adjustment required. Just watching an NHL game will document that both teams will use exactly the same system and style of play. Does anyone really think that the Canadians would adopt a Soviet-style puck possession game if they worked together all year?

 

[Yakushev72]

Yakushev 72

I don't think so. The Soviet team the Canadian collegiate players faced in 1969, for example, included Firsov, Yakushev, Maltsev, Kharlamov, Petrov, Mikhailov, Vikulov -- should I go on? And that team lost both of its games to Czechoslovakia.



I was talking about the Challenge Cup team. The Canada Cup team got perhaps two exhibition games under its belt immediately before the tournament started and then usually played its first game against Finland, which was kind of a warm-up game in those days. It is beyond argument that the Canada Cup teams were one-off teams of extremely short duration. You simply can't compare that to the Soviet National Team, which was a year-round operation and a continuous entity.



My goodness, do we have a Communist holdover here? I hate to break it to you, but Russia joined the ranks of "bourgeois democracy and exploitative capitalism" about, um, twenty years ago.



I didn't present it as a "rumor", it was referred to as fact by Sinden in his column written contemporaneously to the event. You would have to take up any concerns about its accuracy with him.

Out of curiosity, did Sinden write a column about the Challenge Cup? To my knowledge, he had no official involvement in it. Was he writing as an observer?

 

[Yakushev72]

Yakushev 72

Yes punished by receiving a major state award in 1972.



You continue to speculate based on false assumptions.
Firsov was the Soviet MVP in 1971 and the best forward at the World Championships that year, so your claim of him being way past his prime in 72 falls apart...



Yes which would mean execution...




That is all you could find??
It reads like a Cold War propaganda piece from the yellow press.
So the guy had some secret document in his desk for 18 years that he later smuggled to the US, then waited another 13 years to reveal it...




That does not have the rosters but indicates that CSKA's top players played, although it says that their effort was somewhat in question.




What government did that?
Substitute freedom with money and you have the answer.
Obviously more attention to international hockey means less to league play.

Banning illegal drugs from sports competition is a relatively recent phenomenon. Blood doping for endurance athletes dates back to the '60's, but didn't become illegal until the mid-90's. I don't know if steroid use was actually officially banned back in 1972, but my guess is that it was not. I am not defending the use of drugs that harm the body while offering an advantage, but if Soviets were not doping back in the '70's, they would be the only ones who weren't. Does the name Lyle Alzado ring a bell?

 

[YMB29]

At the time hockey in Europe was only at the Canadian amateur level.

I don't think so. The Soviet team the Canadian collegiate players faced in 1969, for example, included Firsov, Yakushev, Maltsev, Kharlamov, Petrov, Mikhailov, Vikulov -- should I go on? And that team lost both of its games to Czechoslovakia.

Well I did not mean by 1969. I thought you meant the earlier period.

I was talking about the Challenge Cup team. The Canada Cup team got perhaps two exhibition games under its belt immediately before the tournament started and then usually played its first game against Finland, which was kind of a warm-up game in those days. It is beyond argument that the Canada Cup teams were one-off teams of extremely short duration. You simply can't compare that to the Soviet National Team, which was a year-round operation and a continuous entity.

Again you are saying that the Soviet national team played and trained year round? It did not. This is getting old...
As for Canada Cups, team Canada had training camps for them, so how could you say that the Canadian teams were just thrown together?
Canada always played the USSR last in the round robin, so there were enough games to come together as a team.

My goodness, do we have a Communist holdover here? I hate to break it to you, but Russia joined the ranks of "bourgeois democracy and exploitative capitalism" about, um, twenty years ago.

Yes, and the results speak for themselves...

I didn't present it as a "rumor", it was referred to as fact by Sinden in his column written contemporaneously to the event. You would have to take up any concerns about its accuracy with him.

Yes I know that it was him who wrote that, but I meant that this was never verified.

 

[YMB29]

Out of curiosity, did Sinden write a column about the Challenge Cup? To my knowledge, he had no official involvement in it. Was he writing as an observer?

Yes as an observer.
http://www.1972summitseries.com/1979ChallengeCup/1979HarrySindenArticle.html

 

[nutbar]

Yes I know that it was him who wrote that, but I meant that this was never verified.

This was mentioned in the book "Go to the Net: Eight Goals That Changed the Game" by Al Strachan.

The Soviets did play an exhibition game against the Dutch on Jan 4 1979 in Assen. So they likely were training in the Netherlands for several weeks...

 

[Yakushev72]

Yakushev 72

Yes as an observer.
http://www.1972summitseries.com/1979ChallengeCup/1979HarrySindenArticle.html

Thanks for the article. As for Sinden's comments, they parallel the same old party line that Soviet hockey players were robots who were enslaved by the Soviet Government and forced to live in Moscow to play for Moscow teams. The facts are much different. Soviet kids dreamed of the money, prestige and special privileges that went with being a national team hockey player. If a kid played in Chelyabinsk, and he got an opportunity to play for CSKA in Moscow, he literally jumped at the chance. The standard of living was infinitely higher in Moscow than in Chelyabinsk, and if you wanted to reap the rewards of hockey talent, Moscow was by far the best place to do it. Igor Larionov *****ed about the rigors of life with CSKA, but do you think there is a chance in hell that he would be as rich and famous as he is today if he chose to stay in the boondocks in Voskresensk?

Sinden was right about one thing - hockey in Canada and the US was limited by the fact that it was primarily a business, and the business side of it prevented North American players from developing the level of skating, puck handling and passing that the Soviets perfected, mainly because there was far too little practice and way too many games and long distance air travel? In the 70's and 80's, the NHL brand of hockey was disappointing at best from a skill standpoint. My opinion is the Canada Cup was established to limit the Soviet advantage of more skill by all the benefits of permanent home ice advantage.

 

[hammerwielder]

Again you are saying that the Soviet national team played and trained year round? It did not. This is getting old...
As for Canada Cups, team Canada had training camps for them, so how could you say that the Canadian teams were just thrown together?
Canada always played the USSR last in the round robin, so there were enough games to come together as a team.

I'm not saying that and have not said that. What I have been saying, and this is historically accurate, is that (1) the nucleus of the Soviet national team, actually much more than the nucleus, played and practiced together with CSKA all season during Elite League play, as the sole purpose of the league was to develop the national team -- this is proven beyond doubt by CSKA winning 16 of 17 league titles during the period; (2) the Soviet National Team played many games on its own as a national team each season, as the Soviet league season was much shorter than that of the NHL and Soviet club teams played only about half as many games as those in the NHL, again the purpose being to permit the national team to play together as the national team for as many games as possible each year and to and practice together as the national team for as much time as possible; the Soviet national team played an average of 30 games per year during the 20-year period when it faced Canada in best-on-best competition, against less than 10 games in total played by any version of Team Canada, ever; and (3) the Soviet national team was a continuous entity, which allowed for in stability and familiarity in personnel and for gradual evolution; each Team Canada by contrast was separated in time by many years and was in each case a "one-off" entity which was disbanded immediately upon conclusion of the tournament for which it was put together.

As any Team Canada training camp was only of a few days' duration, and the teams were truly "one-off" entities, each version of Team Canada was, in comparison to the continuous Soviet team, indeed "thrown together".

You should fact check before responding -- in the 1996 World Cup, successor to the Canada Cup, Canada played -- and beat -- Russia in its first round robin game.

Canada has never had a preliminary group round-robin game against Russia best-on-best in the Olympics. The only two occasions the teams have met since NHL players were allowed to participate was in the quarters, with Canada losing 2-0 in 1998 and Russia going on to lose in the final, and with Canada winning 7-3 in 2010 and going on to win the gold.

To respond to an earlier post by Yakushev72 on this point, it's an insult to the best-on-best Team Canada teams to say they played only a dump and chase game. Their individual skill has always allowed them to play inventively, in fact I contend with more innovation than Soviet teams, which played within a puck possession system in which they were heavily indoctrinated. Their quality of execution of the system would differ from game to game, but I would not say they showed as much naked ingenuity as Team Canada showed, which was not only permitted to them but in view of unfamiliarity and lack of an indoctrinated system was a necessary component of their winning record. When one considers plays ranging all the way from Peter Mahovlich's and Henderson's dazzling breakaway goals in the Summit Series to the breathtaking tic-tac-toe passing and scoring plays that were created by guys like Gretzky, Lemieux, Sakic, Iginla, Nash and many others, who used only their special skill sets and no pre-programmed script to craft them, I couldn't disagree more with your contention. I don't know what style a year-round, continuous entity Team Canada would have developed, because it was never allowed to happen, but you can bet it would have been pretty sick. My point is also backed up by post-Soviet era play, in which Russian teams have had to rely more on individual skill and ingenuity than the old Soviet teams did, and for the same reasons as every Team Canada has. The Russian record has been abysmal in comparison to that of Team Canada and even some of the other major powers, so you can draw your own conclusions from that.

 

[hammerwielder]

I don't mean to diminish the greatness of the old Soviet national team by saying the above, but it made all the difference when Canada was able to put all its best players on the ice. I'm not saying the Canadian World Championship teams post-1977 composed of players from NHL teams that finished out the playoffs were terrible (my cousin played on three of them so I had better be careful here), but Canada's record against the Soviets in World Championships from 1977 on was frightfully abysmal. I think Canada won only 1 and tied only about 4 of the two dozen games they played against the Soviets at the WC after NHL players were allowed in, and several of the losses were extremely lopsided. I think that this record further supports the proposition that having nothing but the best players on a Canadian team in the best-on-best competitions made a huge difference for Canada, and partly because those teams played much more imaginatively than the WC teams, whose main strategy was to try to frustrate the Soviet attack by containing them and preventing them from freewheeling, because when the WC teams did try to play run-and-gun and freewheel with them they got blown away.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Out of curiosity, did Sinden write a column about the Challenge Cup? To my knowledge, he had no official involvement in it. Was he writing as an observer?

He was Assistant GM
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...rry-sinden+challenge-cup+cliff-fletcher&hl=en

 

[Uncle Rotter]

The starting 3 forwards & 2 defencemen for the NHL team were chosen by fan balloting.
Maybe a bit of ballot stuffing by Chicago fans?

Centres:
1.Bobby Clarke 70,726
2.Bryan Trottier 64,379
3.Ivan Boldirev 56,672

Defence:
1.Larry Robinson 121,831
2.Denis Potvin 100,628
3.Phil Russell 89,049

Goal:
1.Tony Esposito 101,099
2.Ken Dryden 86,216
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=Fr8DH2VBP9sC&dat=19790119&printsec=frontpage
(go to page 18 for full results)

 

[Yakushev72]

Yakushev 72

I'm not saying that and have not said that. What I have been saying, and this is historically accurate, is that (1) the nucleus of the Soviet national team, actually much more than the nucleus, played and practiced together with CSKA all season during Elite League play, as the sole purpose of the league was to develop the national team -- this is proven beyond doubt by CSKA winning 16 of 17 league titles during the period; (2) the Soviet National Team played many games on its own as a national team each season, as the Soviet league season was much shorter than that of the NHL and Soviet club teams played only about half as many games as those in the NHL, again the purpose being to permit the national team to play together as the national team for as many games as possible each year and to and practice together as the national team for as much time as possible; the Soviet national team played an average of 30 games per year during the 20-year period when it faced Canada in best-on-best competition, against less than 10 games in total played by any version of Team Canada, ever; and (3) the Soviet national team was a continuous entity, which allowed for in stability and familiarity in personnel and for gradual evolution; each Team Canada by contrast was separated in time by many years and was in each case a "one-off" entity which was disbanded immediately upon conclusion of the tournament for which it was put together.

As any Team Canada training camp was only of a few days' duration, and the teams were truly "one-off" entities, each version of Team Canada was, in comparison to the continuous Soviet team, indeed "thrown together".

You should fact check before responding -- in the 1996 World Cup, successor to the Canada Cup, Canada played -- and beat -- Russia in its first round robin game.

Canada has never had a preliminary group round-robin game against Russia best-on-best in the Olympics. The only two occasions the teams have met since NHL players were allowed to participate was in the quarters, with Canada losing 2-0 in 1998 and Russia going on to lose in the final, and with Canada winning 7-3 in 2010 and going on to win the gold.

To respond to an earlier post by Yakushev72 on this point, it's an insult to the best-on-best Team Canada teams to say they played only a dump and chase game. Their individual skill has always allowed them to play inventively, in fact I contend with more innovation than Soviet teams, which played within a puck possession system in which they were heavily indoctrinated. Their quality of execution of the system would differ from game to game, but I would not say they showed as much naked ingenuity as Team Canada showed, which was not only permitted to them but in view of unfamiliarity and lack of an indoctrinated system was a necessary component of their winning record. When one considers plays ranging all the way from Peter Mahovlich's and Henderson's dazzling breakaway goals in the Summit Series to the breathtaking tic-tac-toe passing and scoring plays that were created by guys like Gretzky, Lemieux, Sakic, Iginla, Nash and many others, who used only their special skill sets and no pre-programmed script to craft them, I couldn't disagree more with your contention. I don't know what style a year-round, continuous entity Team Canada would have developed, because it was never allowed to happen, but you can bet it would have been pretty sick. My point is also backed up by post-Soviet era play, in which Russian teams have had to rely more on individual skill and ingenuity than the old Soviet teams did, and for the same reasons as every Team Canada has. The Russian record has been abysmal in comparison to that of Team Canada and even some of the other major powers, so you can draw your own conclusions from that.

The fact that the discussion is now focused on politics more than hockey, when we talk about indoctrination and conscripts and robots instead of the quality of the players, this thread looks like it's run its course. I will say one more thing that will no doubt be viewed as controversial, but to the Russian hockey fan, the Canada Cup/World Cup may be a best-on-best tournament, but it is not a recognized international tournament, for good reason. The tournament was created by Hockey Canada and the NHLPA, both of which were originally the domain of Alan Eagleson. Even though it was a Canadian (as opposed to international) operation from the outset, you could argue that the 1976 and 1981 versions had a semblance of fairness. In those years, while Canada enjoyed home ice advantage for every game (imagine a Stanley Cup Final between Pittsburgh and Washington, with all seven games played in Washington), the Canadians allowed the Europeans and Americans to participate in the details of the tournament, like having a voice in selecting referees.

When the Soviets defeated Canada, 6-3, in the round robin of 1984, and Eagleson was displeased with the job that Dag Olson of Sweden did in refereeing the game, he immediately and for all time decreed that there would never be a European referee in a medal round game. That took away any hint of fairness and legitimacy for the Canada Cup for the rest of its existence. Theoretically, Eagleson could have ordered the Soviets to reduce its roster to a total of seven players, or decreed that in all games between Canada and the Soviets, Canada would skate with a 5 on 3 advantage for the whole game! It was the Canada Cup, so who could stop him? He made the rules unilaterally, and if you wanted to get paid, you complied! The Soviets had a more talented and better hockey team than Canada in the 1987 Canada Cup, but they were robbed of an opportunity to win by Don Koharski, a Canadian citizen who referred the medal round games between the Soviets and Canada. It was almost like pro wrestling!

 

[Theokritos]

You should fact check before responding -- in the 1996 World Cup, successor to the Canada Cup, Canada played -- and beat -- Russia in its first round robin game.

I agree with many of your points, but this argument is a bit off the mark. We're arguing about the Soviet era here, not about Russia's fortunes from 1992 on. The advantage of playing together more often disappeared with the demise of the USSR. Fact is, Team Canada always played the Soviet Union in the last round robin game in the Canada Cup - fair enough of course, given the Soviet's advantage.

 

[YMB29]

the sole purpose of the league was to develop the national team -- this is proven beyond doubt by CSKA winning 16 of 17 league titles during the period;

I see you are jumping to conclusions again...

the Soviet National Team played many games on its own as a national team each season, as the Soviet league season was much shorter than that of the NHL and Soviet club teams played only about half as many games as those in the NHL, again the purpose being to permit the national team to play together as the national team for as many games as possible each year and to and practice together as the national team for as much time as possible;

Again you are just assuming that this was the purpose.
It is the NHL's season that is too long due to business reasons and more teams.

As any Team Canada training camp was only of a few days' duration, and the teams were truly "one-off" entities, each version of Team Canada was, in comparison to the continuous Soviet team, indeed "thrown together".

I don't see how the team was continuous when it did not constantly stay together. There were continuous elements on the team, like the KLM line. You are still stretching it...
For Canada, training camp, exhibition and round robin games were enough to become a team for the Canada Cups. If Canada wanted to be more successful in other tournaments then yes it would have needed to pay more attention to its national team.

You should fact check before responding -- in the 1996 World Cup, successor to the Canada Cup, Canada played -- and beat -- Russia in its first round robin game.

Yes I remember that game and how they were allowed to beat Russia.
But I was talking about the USSR, not Russia.

Canada has never had a preliminary group round-robin game against Russia best-on-best in the Olympics. The only two occasions the teams have met since NHL players were allowed to participate was in the quarters, with Canada losing 2-0 in 1998 and Russia going on to lose in the final, and with Canada winning 7-3 in 2010 and going on to win the gold.

That was in 2006.

To respond to an earlier post by Yakushev72 on this point, it's an insult to the best-on-best Team Canada teams to say they played only a dump and chase game. Their individual skill has always allowed them to play inventively, in fact I contend with more innovation than Soviet teams

Don't know about that. I would think a team that grabs and hooks to keep up is not more innovative...
Unless you see things like tackling in hockey as innovative.

My point is also backed up by post-Soviet era play, in which Russian teams have had to rely more on individual skill and ingenuity than the old Soviet teams did, and for the same reasons as every Team Canada has. The Russian record has been abysmal in comparison to that of Team Canada and even some of the other major powers, so you can draw your own conclusions from that.

So you are saying that the only difference between the Soviet teams and post-Soviet Russian teams is practice and playing time together?

I think that this record further supports the proposition that having nothing but the best players on a Canadian team in the best-on-best competitions made a huge difference for Canada

Along with the home advantages...

 

[YMB29]

The Soviets, on the other hand, prepared for the series by training for several weeks in the Netherlands, where they lived on New York time and practiced on a surface that was tailored to the specifications of the rink at Madison Square Garden.

This was mentioned in the book "Go to the Net: Eight Goals That Changed the Game" by Al Strachan.

The Soviets did play an exhibition game against the Dutch on Jan 4 1979 in Assen. So they likely were training in the Netherlands for several weeks...

From a New York Times article:
For the last three weeks the Soviet players have been whispered to have worked out in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, on an ice surface similar to that of the Garden's in size. They also are said to have lived and practiced there on New York time so as to minimize jet lag. But their team officials say that the Amsterdam ice was larger than the Garden's and that they are adjusting now to an eight-hour difference from Moscow's time zone.

 

[VMBM]

Heh. Luckily I don't feel quite as passionately about these USSR vs. CAN threads as I did before. It's an interesting subject nevertheless.

Challenge Cup?

No, I don't think it was the "Series of the Century" but it certainly wasn't anything close to an "All-Star game" either. Both sides still cared very much, although I would think that for the NHL players Stanley Cup probably meant more, like the World Championships meant more for the Soviets.
I would have preferred another 8 game series like in 1972 with maybe a bit more preparation time. Then there at least shouldn't have been any excuses. But apparently that just wasn't possible - unless it had been held in September or something. However, like I, and many others, have said, if the NHL players felt they weren't ready, then the series should not have happened. But it's rather the fans that were (and still are) making excuses rather than the media and the players themselves.

What did the Challenge Cup prove? Well, if you have seen the games, it certainly proved that USSR had reached a peak never seen before. After the poor showing in G1, they found an incredible 'groove' around the halfway mark of G2. One thing: they couldn't be physically or mentally intimidated like maybe before; NHL definitely tried that and I don't think you have to be paranoid to suspect that Kharlamov's and Vladimir Golikov's injuries didn't happen by coinsidence.
As far as the passing goes, it was on another level. For the 2nd game (due to Kharlamov's injury), a youngster like Victor Tyumenev was put on the top line with Mikhailov and Petrov, and he and the whole line played brilliantly. A blind pass between the legs by Petrov to Tyumenev? No problem. The following shift: a blind drop pass by Tyumenev to Petrov? No problem, and a scoring chance. Sorry for getting poetic, but watching your favourite team and players play at their best - or nearly at their best - is always a treat.
Another thing is that this was arguably the first time (1978-79 season) when the Soviets had 4 strong forward lines; every line was a scoring threat. I think it was a matter of depth, but also something that Tikhonov insisted; never again did the Soviets have only 3 forward lines (maybe it would have been preferable in the 1987 Canada Cup, who knows???)

And let's forget the Challenge Cup for a moment. USSR were even better at the 1979 World Championships a couple of months later. Never before had they beaten Czechoslovakia so easily (11-1 and 6-1). In fact, just a year before, they won the world championship by goal differential, beating CSSR in the 'final' 3-1 (having lost the previous game 4-6). And just a few months prior to the Challenge Cup, the Soviets had barely gotten a 3-3 tie vs. Czechoslovakia at the 1978 Izvestia, which won them the tournament. Did Czechoslovakia get so much worse inside a few months, or did USSR get so much better? Maybe both, but I'm inclined to think that it was a case of the latter - and I think that 'clicking' might have happened during the Challenge Cup, who knows. Anyway, they dominated the 1979-83 tournaments like never before - except 1980, of course.

 

[VMBM]

Firsov scored 11 goals in 10 games at the 1971 WC and led the league in scoring in 1970-71 with 33 goals. In stark contrast, Firsov was a non-factor at the 1972 Olympics with only 2 goals and his scoring output fell precipitously to 17 goals in the 1971-72 season[/B]. The latter statistics were the ones that immediately preceded the Summit Series. He never again returned to his dominating form after 1971 and never again played for the national team at the world level after the 1972 Olympics. These are facts, not "false assumptions".

Did they play 10 games in the 1972 Winter Olympics too? So you're comparing apples to oranges there a bit. And in addition to those 2 goals, he registered 5 assists, and was the 7th highest scorer in the tournament (#4 on his team), so he was hardly a "non-factor".

Also, in the 1972 Winter Olympics, Firsov played on a line with Vikulov and Kharlamov. The line was a brainchild of Anatoli Tarasov. Vikulov and Kharlamov were the de facto forwards, whereas Firsov's role was sort of half-forward, half-defenseman... midfielder, if you will. So it looks obvious that his main duty wasn't even to score goals. Kharlamov talks about it in his book, and I don't remember him saying that Firsov was a liability or slowed-down version or anything like that. He just says "it was impossible to play badly on that line" or something like that.

I do believe that Firsov wasn't quite the same player anymore by September 1972, but I think he could've been a small factor nevertheless. It is not hard to imagine that he would have outperformed, say, Maltsev or Petrov, who were just 'good' in the Series.

 

[hammerwielder]

The fact that the discussion is now focused on politics more than hockey, when we talk about indoctrination and conscripts and robots instead of the quality of the players, this thread looks like it's run its course. I will say one more thing that will no doubt be viewed as controversial, but to the Russian hockey fan, the Canada Cup/World Cup may be a best-on-best tournament, but it is not a recognized international tournament, for good reason. The tournament was created by Hockey Canada and the NHLPA, both of which were originally the domain of Alan Eagleson. Even though it was a Canadian (as opposed to international) operation from the outset, you could argue that the 1976 and 1981 versions had a semblance of fairness. In those years, while Canada enjoyed home ice advantage for every game (imagine a Stanley Cup Final between Pittsburgh and Washington, with all seven games played in Washington), the Canadians allowed the Europeans and Americans to participate in the details of the tournament, like having a voice in selecting referees.

When the Soviets defeated Canada, 6-3, in the round robin of 1984, and Eagleson was displeased with the job that Dag Olson of Sweden did in refereeing the game, he immediately and for all time decreed that there would never be a European referee in a medal round game. That took away any hint of fairness and legitimacy for the Canada Cup for the rest of its existence. Theoretically, Eagleson could have ordered the Soviets to reduce its roster to a total of seven players, or decreed that in all games between Canada and the Soviets, Canada would skate with a 5 on 3 advantage for the whole game! It was the Canada Cup, so who could stop him? He made the rules unilaterally, and if you wanted to get paid, you complied! The Soviets had a more talented and better hockey team than Canada in the 1987 Canada Cup, but they were robbed of an opportunity to win by Don Koharski, a Canadian citizen who referred the medal round games between the Soviets and Canada. It was almost like pro wrestling!

Interesting points. While I did refer to indoctrination, I was referring not to political indoctrination but to strategy, tactics, positioning, systems, all the brilliant innovations in team play for which Tarasov was responsible -- the national team had these in greater measure than any other team probably in history.

I accept that the Canada Cup did not mean as much to the Soviets than the Olympics, for sure, or the WC either, because the CSSR could still send its best players and Sweden remained strong too, and a WC was more important to the Soviet brass than any other tournament except the Olympics. But just as the WC were not very important for Canada, the Canada Cup was crucial to Canada, as it was its only best-on-best competition against Soviet. For that matter it was the Soviets' only best-on-best against Canada, so from that bilateral perspective I will contend the Canada Cup and the Challenge Cup were also very important for the Soviets -- remember Mikhailov's "one finger, two finger" assertion at the conclusion of the Challenge Cup and the team's wild on-ice celebration that kept going long after the final buzzer had sounded.

Eagleson is deservedly reviled in Canada. I mean, the guy's a crook who stole from the very players who he had been hired to protect. The only reason he got all Canada's players to play those tournaments was the money that was supposed to go the players' pension fund. Turned out he was living high on the hog instead at their expense. So I do not object to your witty ridicule of him one bit.
I suppose some of that gamesmanship with refereeing on his part went back to the 72 series, particularly the games in Moscow, where there really was a lot of cloak and dagger ("Dagg") stuff going on and Eagleson found himself surrounded by about 1000 Red Army soldiers in Game 8 (remember his double middle finger salute as he crossed the ice under the protection of the very Canadian players he was screwing). And again, I think the Koharski thing was more a reflection of the fact that the NHL tolerated clutching and grabbing and what I called calf-roping and hog-tieing to an extent that you simply had to see to believe (your photo is a hilarious example; the graceful Soviet skater blowing by two guys who were obviously caught standing still (including Coffey), one of whom resorted to open-field tackling). I admit that by modern standards it looks really terrible.

And I can't help but comment on that subject that with all the talk today about head shots I recently went back and watched the 1968 Olympic final and the physical respect between the teams was unbelievable. This is an element that is just gone from today's game, and it's a shame.

As for the "robots" quip, I can't do better than refer you to the article at the top of page 2 after the first game of the Challenge Cup for evidence that Canadians were heavily "indoctrinated" in this type of rhetoric at the time (probably because they had so much fear for this disciplined team wearing identical helmets that just went about its business on the ice remorselessly):

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=Fr8DH2VBP9sC&dat=19790209&printsec=frontpage

 

[hammerwielder]

Also, in the 1972 Winter Olympics, Firsov played on a line with Vikulov and Kharlamov. The line was a brainchild of Anatoli Tarasov. Vikulov and Kharlamov were the de facto forwards, whereas Firsov's role was sort of half-forward, half-defenseman... midfielder, if you will. So it looks obvious that his main duty wasn't even to score goals. Kharlamov talks about it in his book, and I don't remember him saying that Firsov was a liability or slowed-down version or anything like that. He just says "it was impossible to play badly on that line" or something like that.

Very interesting insight, thanks for that. Vikulov also played on the Summit Series team and I remember him being scary good, but wasn't on Kharlamov's line. I don't mean to run down Firsov, just that there were a number of other really good players on that team and they definitely could have, and perhaps should have, won without him.

I do believe that Firsov wasn't quite the same player anymore by September 1972, but I think he could've been a small factor nevertheless. It is not hard to imagine that he would have outperformed, say, Maltsev or Petrov, who were just 'good' in the Series.

Really? Wow, I remember Maltsev as amazing, one of their star players. He had near-balletic skill. And while Petrov may have been quieter than his linemates -- a very smooth skater -- he seemed the most important cog for his line, and when he turned it on a couple of times he absolutely blew my mind. So if they were merely "good" on that occasion, I shudder to think how good they were when "great".

 

[Anderson9]

Did they play 10 games in the 1972 Winter Olympics too? So you're comparing apples to oranges there a bit. And in addition to those 2 goals, he registered 5 assists, and was the 7th highest scorer in the tournament (#4 on his team), so he was hardly a "non-factor".

Also, in the 1972 Winter Olympics, Firsov played on a line with Vikulov and Kharlamov. The line was a brainchild of Anatoli Tarasov. Vikulov and Kharlamov were the de facto forwards, whereas Firsov's role was sort of half-forward, half-defenseman... midfielder, if you will. So it looks obvious that his main duty wasn't even to score goals. Kharlamov talks about it in his book, and I don't remember him saying that Firsov was a liability or slowed-down version or anything like that. He just says "it was impossible to play badly on that line" or something like that.

I do believe that Firsov wasn't quite the same player anymore by September 1972, but I think he could've been a small factor nevertheless. It is not hard to imagine that he would have outperformed, say, Maltsev or Petrov, who were just 'good' in the Series.

I think the 2 of us we've had a similar opinion exchange before. It was me that came up with criticism of Tarasov’s "tactical innovations". Hope you won't mind my reminding you that I don't believe in "midfielders" in ice hockey. Do you, seriously?
Like I was saying earlier Tarasov began to show some signs of...let's say slight incongruity, if you will. "Hockey midfielders" (or rather, the idea of their very existence) were Tarasov's invention through and through. He was obsessed with the idea of the "sistema" 5-man unit ever since his CSKA faced the need to shut down Spartak Moscow’s lethal Starshinov line starting from 1965/66. Power winger Moiseev was to mark Starshinov and become a sort of midfield man, Ionov and Mishakov skating up front, Romishevsky #13 referred to as "2nd midfielder" reportedly teamed up with AFM Moisseiev, and Zaitsev placed as CD/sweeper. The idea proved a resounding fiasco. In a similar way, his decision to put the whole Ionov's 5 man unit on an Olympic roster nearly cost USSR Olympic gold. But, just as we see in numerous cases of obsessive mania, the idea held forth, Tarasov held on to make up another "sistema" under which Tsigankov was paired with Firsov in his purported 'midfield'. For awhile, his otherwise sound coaching ideas had been occasionally interspersed with his kinks yet later on his extravagance was gaining the upper hand.
ADD TO IT the fact that in November 1973 the vengeful Bobrov and the hockey federation pressurized Tarassov into re-establishing the Troika Petrova at CSKA, forcing him to move Kharlamov to LW in place of Blinov in a restored KPM line at the expense of the 2nd line, which meant a Red Army becoming a “one-line team†(komanda odnoi troiki)
I really don’t know what caused the precocious decline. Firsov who definitely wasn’t critically old at that time, but knowing his career only outlasted Starshinov’s by a year leaves no doubt. Had he been showing his previous numbers when he retired early in 1973/74 season there would have been lots of clamor, given his huge nationwide popularity. But mind you no one seemed to mind, me included. (I grew up with his name on my lips). He did decline, and very much so.