VMBM
And it didn't even bring me down
The Swedish ref who was supposed to be in Game 8, Stalberg, was told to stay at his hotel room. Kompalla took his spot. This is very well documented material, nothing new. .
I can see this turning into a typical yes-no & pro USSR vs. pro CAN argument. However, a couple of points...
There's difference between the Russians wanting Kompalla and the Russians paying him to give them the advantage. If he really was bribed, though, I doubt that the Soviets were very happy with him; he didn't allow the Kharlamov goal in game 6 and he gave more penalties to the Russians in the crucial 3rd period of game 8. And as one who has seen the games many times, no one can convince me that the Canadians weren't playing very dirty in game 6; Kharlamov was being 'hunted' right from the start. This was also noticed by the what's-his-name color commentator (Brian Conacher?)...
BTW, Kompalla was notorious in Europe (WCs et al) for being an inconsistent and lousy ref.
As for Don Koharski, the Russians requested him and he made some questionable calls both ways for sure. We've torn apart the play where Bourque had been tripped up which resulted in a goal countless times.
Canada did have the advantage in other areas. Defense was one of them like you said, but how about determination? That is a fancy word for heart. By watching those games you can't see that more from them? It isn't as if the Russians didn't want to win, but one team or another by their actions always proves to be the one who decides to want it more. This is sports, plain and simple, and the accusations against a Canadian team's heart are much few and far between than other teams.
That they had to take out the best Russian player in 1972 will always taint the victory, like it or not. It was poster Zine who mentioned the often-made argument that what if some Russian player had taken out Gretzky in 1987? There's absolutely no way you would accept the very likely Canadian defeat, and would probably condemn anyone talking about Russian heart. Well, first of all, I don't think that the Canadian players would have let the Russians get out of that series alive (speaking metaphorically), if something like that happened to Gretzky. Can you imagine Mark Messier letting a thing like that go? But is that a question of heart or something a bit more sinister? I think the Soviets showed a little bit of that in the 1972 Summit Series after the Kharlamov incident. Boris Mikhailov was not the most gentlemanly player of all-time, but I doubt that he would have done what he did (kicking at Bergman) in the game 7, if he hadn't witnessed his team mate and friend being deliberately injured in the previous game.
The one argument I've heard from the Canadian players is that they had the advantage (heart, determination, whatever), because many of them had had to dig deeper in the NHL (during the Stanley Cup finals etc.) than the Russians ever had in international hockey. But hey, many of the Soviet players had been through some true wars on the ice already, most notably against Czechoslovakia (after 1968). They had experienced losses and the disappointment that goes with it (in 1969 they lost both of those emotion-filled games vs. CSSR, and in the 1972 WC in Prague, they lost the deciding game 2-3 and the world championship to Czechoslovakia). I'm sure they hated losing and were quite determined not to lose again.
I was not certainly indicating that the Canadians lack heart, but maybe I'd like to hear more proof that they have more heart than the Soviets, for example.
In 1976, Canada had clearly the best team on paper. It's not like they had their backs against the wall in any way. With that Team USSR and the state of Soviet hockey at the time, the Soviets had little chance of winning the tournament. Without Mikhailov, Petrov and Kharlamov, forget it. Czechoslovakia was a little better, but would have needed similar great goal-tending from Dzurilla (or Holecek) in the finals than in the round robin game, to make it really close.
1981, ahem. Did the Canadians possibly lose their heart in the infamous 3rd period? Not that everybody wouldn't after 5-1, 6-1 or so, though...
In the 1984 semi-final, it was a close game and could have gone either way. I think that is the one clutch game against the Russians in which the Canadians were definitely better, but was it about heart or did they just have a better game plan? I would think the latter. I don't think you can dismiss the home advantage they had either.
In 1987, Canada clearly had the better team on paper. KLM (or rather K and M) were in top form with Kasatonov and Fetisov, and the 2nd line (Khomutov-Bykov-Kamensky) was very efficient too. Semak scored a couple of key goals. Besides that, it was not a deep Soviet team, especially compared to the teams they had in 1979 and 1981-83. At crucial points of game 3, I think Canada got a little help from those questionable calls and some weak goals let in by Mylnikov. Canada certainly had the momentum going into the latter half of the 3rd period. The most - for want of a better word - heart the Canadians showed was probably that they didn't panic after the equalizer by Semak.
All in all, Canada certainly has a knack for winning big, close games, no one can dispute that. Is it because they have more heart? I don't know.
Last edited: