All-time top 10: National teams

RorschachWJK

Registered User
Dec 28, 2004
4,941
1,299
Yeah, good that you are looking at it that way. There are alot of immature finnish kids that never consider the circumstances surrounding the war.

The fact that it would have taken 4 months for the swedish army to mobilize a force of say 150 000 men, and getting them and the supplies over the sea to Finland, just in time the war ended(started november 30, ended March 13th), is just striking. It was as i mentioned earlier, practically impossible. I think the government handled the situation very well, but we can agree to disagree there.
Actually, the voluntery force Sweden sent was the biggest ever involved in a war, to this date.

Ah, i love history, but lets call the quits in this thread shall we?

History is extremely interesting, especially military history. But yeah, let's get back to hockey before the mods wake up :)

I'm going to get a couple of classic Soviet and Russian hockey games in a few weeks (Canada Cup: 1981 USSR vs Canada final, Canada Cup: 1987 USSR vs Finland Round robin, Olympics: 1994 Russia vs Finland Bronze metal game). This means that there's several delightful evenings with beer and hockey on the horizon, I can hardly wait.
 

Crazyhorse

Registered User
Sep 2, 2006
2,339
0
Gothenburg
History is extremely interesting, especially military history. But yeah, let's get back to hockey before the mods wake up :)

I'm going to get a couple of classic Soviet and Russian hockey games in a few weeks (Canada Cup: 1981 USSR vs Canada final, Canada Cup: 1987 USSR vs Finland Round robin, Olympics: 1994 Russia vs Finland Bronze metal game). This means that there's several delightful evenings with beer and hockey on the horizon, I can hardly wait.

Where do you order these games? Torrent? :sarcasm:
 

notmynhl

Registered User
Jan 30, 2007
96
0
Vancouver
Boucicaut:
Your point number 1: A rather ridiculous point you have here. How old are you and are you aware of the fact that the Soviet empire was collapsing at this time? Given that you seem to have trouble separating Russia and Soviet Union, I'm guessing you're not aware. Read a good history book and be enlightened.

Point 2. Soviet Union didn't exist in 2002 and was in shambles in 1991. You can't just count tourney wins and be done with it. They're obviously an important part but you need to look at individual games too to get a more complete picture. This is what the author has done. You are blatantly biased in ignoring the fact that Canada had a home ice advantage in the majority of games. That counts, like it or not.

Point 3. My point was that it is a tie which is the conclusion on the authors final page (the text on read background). The world championship games were not considered for that part of the conclusions but later (the text on blue background) where he gives a slight edge to Soviet Union. That's not the part that I agreed with though. Remember, I said IT WAS A TIE, not that Soviets were superior. Truth hurts sometimes, doesn't it.

Olympics 1998, 2002 and 2006 mean nothing here because we're talking about Soviet Union, not Russia. That's a whole other discussion right there.

And if you find 'comrade' to be derogatory in this context where we are talking about Soviet Union, then I'm sorry for your lack of sense of humor. Also, as we can see, you're pretty sadly lacking in the fact department yourself.

1. So our political situation (NHL/WHA Split) somehow doesn't count? Clear Bias.

2. We played a series where home ice was even...best on best...it was called the '72 Summit Series. We won.

3. Once again, the author uses World Championship games to help draw his conclusion. Canada sent what...5th rate teams? Yet he doesn't count 1991 cause the Soviets sent 2nd rate teams? This is just silly, and shows the obvious bias of the author.

4. OK, we don't count Russia.

So, lets drop 1991 because the Soviet team was 2nd rate, fine. But to be fair, we obviously have to drop 1974 because the Canadian team was obviously second rate, unless you want to argue that in 1974, that was the best team Canada could send?

So, using the rules of the site author you quote Canada wins 4>2. Kinda ironic that the results work out to describe a classic seven game series. Canada wins the series 4 - 2...which perfectly describes the relative abilities of the two teams.
 

Reks

Registered User
Oct 23, 2006
247
2
Soviets sent B team in 1976 rather than in 1991.

In 1991 they sent ... I don't know ... how to call what they sent. I think Soviet Union technically speaking didn't exist at that moment.

Personally, I count neither 1974 nor 1976.

What I count is 1972, 1979, 1981, 1984, 1987.
 

notmynhl

Registered User
Jan 30, 2007
96
0
Vancouver
Boucicaut:
How old are you and are you aware of the fact that the Soviet empire was collapsing at this time? Given that you seem to have trouble separating Russia and Soviet Union, I'm guessing you're not aware. Read a good history book and be enlightened.

Actually, I'm probably older than you (I watched the '72 series live). I also live in Canada, which means I received a great education (OK, I'm a teacher, so I'm a bit biased :P).

I will admit that I don't know how the collapse of the USSR and rebirth of Russia plays out in the context of hockey. Could you please explain this to me?

Edit: Please include something about why post-collapse series shouldn't be included with pre-collapse series.
 
Last edited:

Zine

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
11,954
1,769
Rostov-on-Don
Actually, I'm probably older than you (I watched the '72 series live). I also live in Canada, which means I received a great education (OK, I'm a teacher, so I'm a bit biased :P).

I will admit that I don't know how the collapse of the USSR and rebirth of Russia plays out in the context of hockey. Could you please explain this to me?

Edit: Please include something about why post-collapse series shouldn't be included with pre-collapse series.

Because the USSR and Russia aren't the same country.....simple as that.
We don't lump Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic together anymore either.

Even if many of the names didn't change, Russian hockey is a vastly different 'institution' than Soviet hockey was. They're not the same thing.
 

notmynhl

Registered User
Jan 30, 2007
96
0
Vancouver
Zine:
Because the USSR and Russia aren't the same country.....simple as that.
We don't lump Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic together anymore either.

Even if many of the names didn't change, Russian hockey is a vastly different 'institution' than Soviet hockey was. They're not the same thing.

Thanks Zine. Could you (or someone else) give me the main ways in which they are different institutions?
 

RorschachWJK

Registered User
Dec 28, 2004
4,941
1,299
Thanks Zine. Could you (or someone else) give me the main ways in which they are different institutions?

I think Zine already partly answered your question. Regarding Soviet Union 1991, I think any country in total turmoil and in the middle of collapsing would have a hard time fielding a competitive team full of national pride and fighting spirit. 1991 should not count in my opinion.
 

RorschachWJK

Registered User
Dec 28, 2004
4,941
1,299
1. So our political situation (NHL/WHA Split) somehow doesn't count? Clear Bias.

2. We played a series where home ice was even...best on best...it was called the '72 Summit Series. We won.

3. Once again, the author uses World Championship games to help draw his conclusion. Canada sent what...5th rate teams? Yet he doesn't count 1991 cause the Soviets sent 2nd rate teams? This is just silly, and shows the obvious bias of the author.

4. OK, we don't count Russia.

So, lets drop 1991 because the Soviet team was 2nd rate, fine. But to be fair, we obviously have to drop 1974 because the Canadian team was obviously second rate, unless you want to argue that in 1974, that was the best team Canada could send?

So, using the rules of the site author you quote Canada wins 4>2. Kinda ironic that the results work out to describe a classic seven game series. Canada wins the series 4 - 2...which perfectly describes the relative abilities of the two teams.

1. Minor hockey politics like that pale in comparison to what was happening in the Soviet Union in 1991. The death of an empire. There's simply no comparison, sorry.

2. Yes you won...after breaking Kharlamov's ankle with a premeditated cowardly slash. I'd say you lost morally. Also, that's just one tourney. You need to also look at the other tourneys AND all the games between teams of the Soviet League and NHL teams. This is what the author has done properly in my opinion.

3. I repeat once more: World Championships WERE NOT used for the part of his conclusions where he deems Canada and Soviet Union equal. And this is the part that I agree with. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE REST WHERE HE CLAIMS SOVIET SUPERIORITY AND USES WORLD CHAMPIONSIP GAMES. Do I finally make myself clear enough? I'm getting tired of explaining this part again and again.
 
Last edited:

notmynhl

Registered User
Jan 30, 2007
96
0
Vancouver
Boucicaut
1. Minor hockey politics like that pale in comparison to what was happening in the Soviet Union in 1991. The death of an empire. There's simply no comparison, sorry.

2. Yes you won...after breaking Kharlamov's ankle with a premeditated cowardly slash. I'd say you lost morally. Also, that's just one tourney. You need to also look at the other tourneys AND all the games between teams of the Soviet League and NHL teams. This is what the author has done properly in my opinion.

3. I repeat once more: World Championships WERE NOT used for the part of his conclusions where he deems Canada and Soviet Union equal. And this is the part that I agree with. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE REST WHERE HE CLAIMS SOVIET SUPERIORITY AND USES WORLD CHAMPIONSIP GAMES. Do I finally make myself clear enough? I'm getting tired of explaining this part again and again.

1. Obviously there is no comparison between the collapse of the USSR, and the WHA/NHL split. That being said, clearly it had a huge impact on the type of team we could send. In 1974 we sent a second-rate team...so it can't be considered a best-on-best tourney. In 1991 USSR sent second-rate team. Lets treat them equally.

2. Yeah, Kharlamov did get his ankle broken. I notice you don't mention that the Soviet players used their skates as weapons: They kicked hard and often. You also don't mention that in Russia, guards carrying machine guns were placed around the ice surface in an attempt to intimidate the Canadian Players. Please don't claim moral superiority...neither side had it.

2b. Why would we include games between USSR teams and the NHL? NHL teams had people from other countries on it, and teams can be stacked...those encounters don't mean a lot in country vs. country (Although some were absolutely awesome games to watch). We are talking about Canada playing the USSR, best on best.

3. You repeat you don't agree with the author on this point. Fine. But whether you agree with it not, it clearly shows that the author of this web site is biased. So, in the end, Canada beats the USSR 4 series to 2 series, and maintains itself as undisputed the undisputed hockey champion of the world. :D

3b. Even if you don't include 1991, and include 1974, Canada wins the series 4-3. Any way you look at it, Canada claims victory over the USSR.
 

RorschachWJK

Registered User
Dec 28, 2004
4,941
1,299
1. Obviously there is no comparison between the collapse of the USSR, and the WHA/NHL split. That being said, clearly it had a huge impact on the type of team we could send. In 1974 we sent a second-rate team...so it can't be considered a best-on-best tourney. In 1991 USSR sent second-rate team. Lets treat them equally.

2. Yeah, Kharlamov did get his ankle broken. I notice you don't mention that the Soviet players used their skates as weapons: They kicked hard and often. You also don't mention that in Russia, guards carrying machine guns were placed around the ice surface in an attempt to intimidate the Canadian Players. Please don't claim moral superiority...neither side had it.

2b. Why would we include games between USSR teams and the NHL? NHL teams had people from other countries on it, and teams can be stacked...those encounters don't mean a lot in country vs. country (Although some were absolutely awesome games to watch). We are talking about Canada playing the USSR, best on best.

3. You repeat you don't agree with the author on this point. Fine. But whether you agree with it not, it clearly shows that the author of this web site is biased. So, in the end, Canada beats the USSR 4 series to 2 series, and maintains itself as undisputed the undisputed hockey champion of the world. :D

3b. Even if you don't include 1991, and include 1974, Canada wins the series 4-3. Any way you look at it, Canada claims victory over the USSR.

My position remains the same: Soviet Union and Canada were equals in hockey. You are entitled to your opinion of course.
 

notmynhl

Registered User
Jan 30, 2007
96
0
Vancouver
Boucicaut:
Quote:
Originally Posted by notmynhl
Thanks Zine. Could you (or someone else) give me the main ways in which they are different institutions?

I think Zine already partly answered your question. Regarding Soviet Union 1991, I think any country in total turmoil and in the middle of collapsing would have a hard time fielding a competitive team full of national pride and fighting spirit. 1991 should not count in my opinion.

I was looking for information on the differences in the "institution of hockey" between pre and post collapse USSR/Russia, as this is apparently why tourneys after 1991 aren't included in discussions.
 

Reks

Registered User
Oct 23, 2006
247
2
BTW, the author of the aforementioned website is Canadian!

1974 and 1976 are in the same category.

WHA Team Canada had a few stars though obviously it wasn't the best possible Canadian Team at that time.

Soviet CC76 Team was actually a "B team".
Yes,Tretiak, Maltsev, Vasiliev were there.
But Mikhailov, Petrov, Kharlamov, Yakushev, Shadrin, Anisin, Tsygankov, Lyapkin were left at home.
 

RorschachWJK

Registered User
Dec 28, 2004
4,941
1,299
I was looking for information on the differences in the "institution of hockey" between pre and post collapse USSR/Russia, as this is apparently why tourneys after 1991 aren't included in discussions.

There is a thread somewhere here where one of the Russian posters explains what happened to player development, junior hockey and the hockey infrastructure after the collapse. A big reason why they didn't excel in the 90ies.

However, that doesn't fully explain why they still can't seem to get their act together though. Seems like there is too much internal politics, quarreling, bickering and players refusing to play under certain coaches etc. Also, they are not developing goalies worthy of best-on-best tourneys. The offence certainly is there. Should they come up with a decent goalie, all the other countries would be in trouble I think.
 

YMB29

Registered User
Sep 25, 2006
422
2
72 Summit Series epitomizes why: Fat Juicy completely unprepared Canadian Team ripe for the picking by a USSR team which had been training for months. Without ever coming close to reaching their true potential, Team Canada wins on heart and desire.
Well a little more than heart and desire. Also the Soviets did not know how the Canadians played too. They thought that the Canadains were much better than themselves. They did not feel confident and prepared as you think.


Yeah, Kharlamov did get his ankle broken. I notice you don't mention that the Soviet players used their skates as weapons: They kicked hard and often.
Often? Mikhailov kicked in self defence during a fight and Bergman kicked back also. It is not like Mikhailov intended to injure.


You also don't mention that in Russia, guards carrying machine guns were placed around the ice surface in an attempt to intimidate the Canadian Players.
What? Did you get that from the movie?


Once again, the author uses World Championship games to help draw his conclusion. Canada sent what...5th rate teams? Yet he doesn't count 1991 cause the Soviets sent 2nd rate teams? This is just silly, and shows the obvious bias of the author.
In 1991, the only game the teams played was a tie, so Canada did not beat the Soviets (the author of that website makes this point I think).
5th rate teams? Again, go look up who played in 82 and 89 for example.


You repeat you don't agree with the author on this point. Fine. But whether you agree with it not, it clearly shows that the author of this web site is biased. So, in the end, Canada beats the USSR 4 series to 2 series, and maintains itself as undisputed the undisputed hockey champion of the world
You want to count all tournaments but one in which Canada not only played at home, but recieved favorable officiating from NHL referees?
So all those games were very fair, especially in 87?
 
Last edited:

Zine

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
11,954
1,769
Rostov-on-Don
I was looking for information on the differences in the "institution of hockey" between pre and post collapse USSR/Russia, as this is apparently why tourneys after 1991 aren't included in discussions.

The reason tourneys after '91 aren't included is b/c Russia and the USSR aren't the same country.

In terms of the 'institution' thing, like Boucicaut said, you can do a thread search because this topic has been discussed ad nauseam here. In short, around 1992 Russian hockey lost its funding and basically went bankrupt and was left for dead. Since then they've been rebuilding the hockey system from scratch.




In terms of 'best on best' I'd count the 1972, 1979, 1981, 1984 and 1987 series. Canada is ahead 3-2; but they also had the luxury of playing at home, on NHL sized ice, and with hometown refs for all but 1/2 of 1 series. In light of that, both teams were pretty equal.
 

notmynhl

Registered User
Jan 30, 2007
96
0
Vancouver
YMB29:
notmynhl:
Yeah, Kharlamov did get his ankle broken. I notice you don't mention that the Soviet players used their skates as weapons: They kicked hard and often.

Often? Mikhailov kicked in self defence during a fight and Bergman kicked back also. It is not like Mikhailov intended to injure.

No, watch when there are scrums on the ice, especially if a USSR player is lying on the ground. You can see them kicking.
 

notmynhl

Registered User
Jan 30, 2007
96
0
Vancouver
YMB29:
notmynhl:
You also don't mention that in Russia, guards carrying machine guns were placed around the ice surface in an attempt to intimidate the Canadian Players.
What? Did you get that from the movie?

No from the game footage. I'll get the DVDs back from my buddy and double check.

Edit:
Good quote:
""They had guns . . . we had hockey sticks. This was really the David and Goliath here"
Phil Esposito

from http://www.heritagehockey.com/eStore/TeamCanada72Quotes.jsp
 
Last edited:

notmynhl

Registered User
Jan 30, 2007
96
0
Vancouver
YMB29:
notmynhl:
Once again, the author uses World Championship games to help draw his conclusion. Canada sent what...5th rate teams? Yet he doesn't count 1991 cause the Soviets sent 2nd rate teams? This is just silly, and shows the obvious bias of the author.
In 1991, the only game the teams played was a tie, so Canada did not beat the Soviets (the author of that website makes this point I think).
5th rate teams? Again, go look up who played in 82 and 89 for example.

I'm not arguing that they weren't good teams. Canada has an abundance of good hockey players. However, the NHL playoffs coincide with World Championships. Many of our best players are unable to attend for this reason
 

notmynhl

Registered User
Jan 30, 2007
96
0
Vancouver
YMB29:
notmynhl:
72 Summit Series epitomizes why: Fat Juicy completely unprepared Canadian Team ripe for the picking by a USSR team which had been training for months. Without ever coming close to reaching their true potential, Team Canada wins on heart and desire.
Well a little more than heart and desire. Also the Soviets did not know how the Canadians played too. They thought that the Canadains were much better than themselves. They did not feel confident and prepared as you think.

The USSR had a very very good, very very well prepared team and the Canadians were unprepared and out of shape. If not for the heart of Team Canada, the USSR could have won one of the games they lost, and claim victory in the series.

I've heard Tretiak speak, and they weren't confident before the series. However, that changed after game 1. Going to Russia they must have been very confident...maybe too confident? Can't remember exactly, but I seem to recall Tretiak mentioning something about that.
 

notmynhl

Registered User
Jan 30, 2007
96
0
Vancouver
YMB29:
notmynhl:
You repeat you don't agree with the author on this point. Fine. But whether you agree with it not, it clearly shows that the author of this web site is biased. So, in the end, Canada beats the USSR 4 series to 2 series, and maintains itself as undisputed the undisputed hockey champion of the world
You want to count all tournaments but one in which Canada not only played at home, but recieved favorable officiating from NHL referees?
So all those games were very fair, especially in 87?

Regarding the youtube.com video. Right, and the refs never missed a call when a USSR player should have taken a penalty? Not sure who the ref was, but Canadian refs drive me crazy in internation hockey. They always seem to bend over backwards so no one can accuse them of favoritism.

Is it our fault the USSR decided to never host any best-on-best tournaments after the '72 Summit Series? Seems to me they knew they were likely to lose, and didn't want to do it on home soil...kinda hurts the propoganda machine.

edit: Not sure what any of this has to do with the fact that the author of the website Boucicaut quoted was biased.
 

notmynhl

Registered User
Jan 30, 2007
96
0
Vancouver
Boucicaut:
There is a thread somewhere here where one of the Russian posters explains what happened to player development, junior hockey and the hockey infrastructure after the collapse. A big reason why they didn't excel in the 90ies.

However, that doesn't fully explain why they still can't seem to get their act together though. Seems like there is too much internal politics, quarreling, bickering and players refusing to play under certain coaches etc. Also, they are not developing goalies worthy of best-on-best tourneys. The offence certainly is there. Should they come up with a decent goalie, all the other countries would be in trouble I think.

Thanks for info...much appreciated. Looking at their record, the junior (U20) program seems to be in fine form.
 

YMB29

Registered User
Sep 25, 2006
422
2
No, watch when there are scrums on the ice, especially if a USSR player is lying on the ground. You can see them kicking.
I don't know what you mean.


No from the game footage. I'll get the DVDs back from my buddy and double check.

Edit:
Good quote:
""They had guns . . . we had hockey sticks. This was really the David and Goliath here"
Phil Esposito

from http://www.heritagehockey.com/eStore...da72Quotes.jsp
I don't see it.


Is it our fault the USSR decided to never host any best-on-best tournaments after the '72 Summit Series? Seems to me they knew they were likely to lose, and didn't want to do it on home soil...kinda hurts the propoganda machine.
Lose? If it took Canada so much help to even barely beat the Soviets at home, then I don't think the Soviets were worried about losing at home. What do you mean hosting a best-on-best tournament? Canada could have sent all of their best players to many tournaments.


Not sure who the ref was, but Canadian refs drive me crazy in internation hockey. They always seem to bend over backwards so no one can accuse them of favoritism.
Where did you get that from?


Regarding the youtube.com video. Right, and the refs never missed a call when a USSR player should have taken a penalty?
You can't compare the number of calls that were in favor of Canada with those that were against them.
 

notmynhl

Registered User
Jan 30, 2007
96
0
Vancouver
YMB29:
I don't see it.
Yeah, it appears they block access into the middle of their site. Easiest way to see Phil Esposito quote: ""They had guns . . . we had hockey sticks. This was really the David and Goliath here"
Google all of: 72 summit series esposito quote Open the first entry. It links to the quotes page. You can wait a few seconds and it appears you automatically get taken the quotes page.


Lose? If it took Canada so much help to even barely beat the Soviets at home, then I don't think the Soviets were worried about losing at home. What do you mean hosting a best-on-best tournament? Canada could have sent all of their best players to many tournaments.

In '72, how did it take so much help to beat the Soviets at home? We won '72 without anyone's help thank you very much.

No, Canada can't send its best players to "many" tournaments. NHL players are under contract, and are only able to attend tournaments outside the NHL schedule. Even then, players could have it written in their contracts that they can't play hockey for any team except their NHL club team without the NHL club team's consent. In that circumstance, if the club team won't give its consent, the player can't go.

Where did you get that from?
Its part of what makes Canadians Canadians. Its why we are one the most liked countries around. :)

You can't compare the number of calls that were in favor of Canada with those that were against them.
That tape had what, maybe 15 missed calls. It was a three game series, and that was all the missed calls there were? Good god, I see that many missed calls in one game sometimes.

Even at that, I would agree with some of the ref's calls. Definitely looks like the Soviets were embellishing a few times...I loved that guy who did the 360. :)
On the Gold Medal winning goal, looks to me like the Russian sure took a big fall for that little tug, definite embellishment there. I can imagine what the Soviet player was thinking: "Captain to bridge...Gretzky, Lemieux, and Hawerchuck approaching...DANGER DANGER...DIVE DIVE DIVE" Klaxons: "Arruuuugah....Arruuuuugah"

In any three game series you are going to have lots of dives on both sides, and lots of missed calls on both sides. Watch some Olympic hockey if you don't believe me.

Bottom line, Canada has definitely been superior to the Soviets in hockey as demonstrated by their greater number of victories in head to head play between the best each country has.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->