ATD 12 Bob Cole Quater-Finals: 1 Medicine Hat Tigers vs. 8 Ottawa 67's

[Hedberg]

1

GMs: GodBlessCanada & raleh
Coach: Clarence "Hap" Day

Gary Roberts (A) - Max Bentley - Rick Middleton (A)
Brian Sutter - Elmer Lach (A) - Martin St. Louis
Gilles Tremblay - Metro Prystai - Rene Robert
Steve Payne - Mike Richards - Allan "Scotty" Davidson
Brad Richards

Denis Potvin (C) - Alexander Ragulin
Eric DesJardins - Randy Carlyle
Charlie Huddy - Brad Maxwell
Oldrich Machac

Billy Smith
Hugh Lehman

Power Play Units
Roberts-Bentley-Middleton-Potvin-Carlyle
Sutter-Lach-St. Louis-Robert-Maxwell

Penalty Killing Units
Middleton-Lach-Potvin-Ragulin
St. Louis-Richards-DesJardins-Carlyle
Tremblay-Prystai-Huddy-Maxwell
Will also employ Robert, Roberts, Davidson and Sutter in penalty killing roles.

Callups:
F: John Ogrodnick, Dave Ganger, Paul MacLean
D: Sylvain Lefebvre,Dave Ellett
G: Bill Ranford

vs.

8

GMs: Cup 2010 Sens Rule & VanIslander
Coach: Mike Babcock

Pete Mahovlich - Adam Oates - Brett Hull
Kevin Stevens - Bobby Clarke (C) - Daniel Alfredsson
Vic Hadfield - Jeremy Roenick - Alexander Mogilny
Wayne Merrick - Brent Sutter - Jack Findlay
Jimmy Gardner, Slim Halderson

Tim Horton - Sergei Gonchar
Gary Suter - Steve Smith
Dickie Boon - "Taffy" Abel
Al Iafrate

George Hainsworth
Henrik Lundqvist

Callups:
F: Bob Probert, Slava Bykov, Andre Khomutov, Bruce Ridpath
D: Marty Burke
G: Vladimir Myshkin

​

Click to read more...

 

[God Bless Canada]

I'll try to post something in depth later today. I just want to wish best of luck to the 67s. Obviously, when going against VanI, you know the discussions are going to be great. It's not really VanI's team - if it was, they wouldn't be eighth, Iafrate wouldn't be there, and I doubt Mogilny would be there, either. But he'll find a way to hype his players.

 

[God Bless Canada]

I think this team is better than some give it credit for. I think some underrated them because Cup tried to put Alfredsson as a first line winger, then he was skipped a bunch of times (not related), and then VanI had to take over late in the draft and fill some gaps after the best available talent was gone.

While they were seventh or eighth on my rankings, it's not a push-over entry, either. Ottawa can trot out three strong scoring lines, they have an outstanding defensive defenceman in Horton, they have a fabulous anchor for the second pairing (Suter).

Ottawa definitely has a luxury in the defensive abilities of their top two centres. I don't think I'd want Hull out there shift-in, shift-out against the opposition's best players, but the two centres certainly are effective backcheckers. As I stated in the review, I think Stevens robust physical game suits the top line better, and Big Pete's defensive awareness fits the second line better, but that's not for me to decide.

Third line can be exploited. I don't think we'll see a lot of them - they'll probably play less than the fourth line. But for those 10 to 12 minutes a game that the Roenick line plays, we can get to them. Mogilny won't be a factor. Too inconsistent. Too unreliable. Against the Tigers, with our team speed and our aggressive defence, Mogilny won't be able to score. And if Mogs ain't scoring, he ain't contributing. Hatfield's a solid complimentary player - good goal scorer, good drive to the net, good in the battle areas - but we have a lot of players who are good along the boards, in the corners and in front of the net.

And I have concerns about the wingers on the fourth line. Merrick and Findlay are good defensive players. But are they good enough to be matched up against first or second line forwards?

I think Sergei Gonchar's a guy on defence who can be exploited. I don't blame Cup and VanI for having Horton and Suter on separate pairings. In theory, and best practice, it's what has to be done. Suter's so good as a second pairing anchor. But it also means that there could be a problem on the first pairing. Gonchar's offensive skill is tremendous. He makes such a great first pass, and he's been one of the most dangerous offensive defencemen in the world for a decade. He helped me win my campus pool my senior year of university. But he's also less-than intimidating defensively. Horton will have to cover for him on a lot of 2-on-1s, against a forward corps loaded with speed, smarts, and players who can score goals or set them up.

Outside of Gonchar, there isn't a gaping hole on defence. Steve Smith might be better served as a third pairing guy, but he's not an uh-oh as a No. 4. We were salivating at the thought of Iafrate's nightly turnovers on defence, but VanI solved that potential problem by sliding Iafrate into the No. 7 defenceman spot.

I like Hainsworth. I like him more than some out here. Yes, he was never a first or second-team all-star, but he was well into his 30s when the all-star teams were introduced. I'm sure he would have been an all-star if those were introduced before 1930.

But this is Billy Smith's time of year. He understands that it's not just about how many goals you let in, it's when and how you let them in. His playoff record is virtually unmatched: 19 straight series wins, a Conn Smythe Trophy in 83, and an incredible 88-36 record in the playoffs. And he did it all while playing almost every night. (Six missed games in five post-seasons from 80 to 84). When it comes to the playoffs, Battlin' Billy is absolutely one of the best of all-time.

The Tigers also have an edge behind the bench. I think very highly of Babcock. He'll love that 1-2 punch at centre ice, and what those players bring besides tremendous offensive ability. He's one of the best in the league right now. But Day is one of the best ever. He brought the mind for the game, the leadership the intensity and the aggressiveness that he had as a player. But he was a tough, no-nonsense coach who treated his players like men. The result? Five Stanley Cups.

I think the Tigers have the edge in team speed, team offence (we have four lines capable of scoring, and the potential for very good production from the back end), and team defence (we have tremendous back-checking from almost all of our forwards). Our forwards can all score, but our defencemen (except for Ragulin) can get involved in the rush. And our defencemen are excellent in their own zone, but they'll all receive support from our forwards.

 

[seventieslord]

You're being pretty kind to your opponents (probably because you know you will win no matter what; let's face it, 8th seeds don't upset 1st seeds in this thing) - the team was average at best to begin with, and then missed way too many picks in the middle. When VI came back and helped out, he made probably the best possible picks, but the GMs here are too good, and therefore very little had fallen to where VI picked them.

 

[vancityluongo]

You're being pretty kind to your opponents (probably because you know you will win no matter what; let's face it, 8th seeds don't upset 1st seeds in this thing) - the team was average at best to begin with, and then missed way too many picks in the middle. When VI came back and helped out, he made probably the best possible picks, but the GMs here are too good, and therefore very little had fallen to where VI picked them.

I gotta agree with all this, however, I just gotta say to the GM's of the other 8th seed teams...I wouldn't count you guys out just yet. The draft is so close now, I honestly wouldn't have been shocked to find my top rated team in the draft being a bottom-3 team in his respective division. If you get a favorable match-up, and you're team might've been a regular season disaster/playoff-type team, I could see upsets being made. However, I don't know if that'll be the case here, but still, you gotta give VanI kudos for the picks he made. Not that Cup had a bad team (I actually really liked it after the first 8 or so picks), but it's a hard situation to be in.

 

[God Bless Canada]

You're being pretty kind to your opponents (probably because you know you will win no matter what; let's face it, 8th seeds don't upset 1st seeds in this thing) - the team was average at best to begin with, and then missed way too many picks in the middle. When VI came back and helped out, he made probably the best possible picks, but the GMs here are too good, and therefore very little had fallen to where VI picked them.

I always try to give credit to my opponents. We're talking about all-time greats here; why would I try to bash them? But I also try to emphasize on why my team's better. In this case, it comes down to better team speed, better team offence and team defence, better goaltending and better coaching. And Ottawa has a few weaknesses (Gonchar on the top pairing and a third scoring line that probably won't do much scoring being the most notable) that I believe can be exploited, and in a draft where it comes down to a lot of one-goal or two-goal games, that can be a big difference.

I'm not going to say anything bad about the Hull and Oates tandem. I'm not a Hull fan, but we know what they can do. And we know they're tough to stop, although I believe we have a team that can limit them. I'll never say anything bad about one of my all-time players, Bobby Clarke. I'm not going to say anything negative about Brent Sutter, or Tim Horton, or Gary Suter, or Steve Smith.

Above all else, the ATD is a celebration of history. So why wouldn't I be kind to my opponents?

 

[seventieslord]

I always try to give credit to my opponents. We're talking about all-time greats here; why would I try to bash them? But I also try to emphasize on why my team's better. In this case, it comes down to better team speed, better team offence and team defence, better goaltending and better coaching. And Ottawa has a few weaknesses (Gonchar on the top pairing and a third scoring line that probably won't do much scoring being the most notable) that I believe can be exploited, and in a draft where it comes down to a lot of one-goal or two-goal games, that can be a big difference.

I'm not going to say anything bad about the Hull and Oates tandem. I'm not a Hull fan, but we know what they can do. And we know they're tough to stop, although I believe we have a team that can limit them. I'll never say anything bad about one of my all-time players, Bobby Clarke. I'm not going to say anything negative about Brent Sutter, or Tim Horton, or Gary Suter, or Steve Smith.

Above all else, the ATD is a celebration of history. So why wouldn't I be kind to my opponents?

It's not about bashing players. But there are 32 teams; one of them has to be the 32nd-best team. (not saying that this is the one)

Someone's got a better first line RW, and there's a reason why. Someone has a better 3rd line C, and there's a reason why. And so on. It's not bashing. Everyone is here to make their cases for why their team should advance, and that involves explaining why your team is better.

I know you think everyone is "exceptional" and "tremendous", but some all-time greats are just less exceptional and less tremendous.

 

[VanIslander]

Ottawa line changes that could spell an upset given their peaks:

Kevin Stevens - Adam Oates - Brett Hull
Pete Mahovlich - Bobby Clarke (C) - Andre Khomutov
Vic Hadfield - Jeremy Roenick - Daniel Alfredsson
Wayne Merrick - Brent Sutter - Jack Findlay

Tim Horton - Sergei Gonchar
Gary Suter - Steve Smith
Dickie Boon - "Taffy" Abel
Marty Burke

Vladimir Myshkin
George Hainsworth​

Soviet MVP one season, Khomutov's speed and scoring against Canada in the '80s at every tourney (Canada Cups, Olympics, World championships,) is absolutely worldclass; Alfie is an ideal third liner in this thing imo, and with rough and tumble young Jeremy and enforcer-able scoring Hadfield on the line the 3rd can play against Tigers 3rd and 4th lines and make things happen; the 67's fourth line is SHUTDOWN talented, I adding Merrick of the Isles dynasty checking line and Findlay, deemed best penalty killer of the 1890s. If this team gets a one-goal lead, it can protect it.

Burke is listed as a 7th dman but will certainly see ice time if needed, as Burke was seen as important in back-to-back Habs championships, a solid defensive presence used to heavy minutes in the early 1930s.

Myshkin was the best goalie of the '84 Canada Cup and shutout Canada in the '79 Challenge Cup final so he is capable of greatness AS A STARTER despite one famous bad performance coming off of the bench suddenly during a bad game for Tretiak.

In a 7-game series, Ottawa can take Medicine Hat. The replacements are a testament to that.

 

[seventieslord]

Interesting changes. I think they are all for the better, with one probable exception - Myshkin. I am a big Hainsworth detractor, especially regarding his playoff record, so I'd be more open to seeing him replaced than most guys, I think. But does Myshkin have the big-game experience to come in and do a better job than Hainsworth, a HHOFer and Retro Smythe winner, would do?

 

[God Bless Canada]

Ottawa line changes that could spell an upset given their peaks:

Kevin Stevens - Adam Oates - Brett Hull
Pete Mahovlich - Bobby Clarke (C) - Andre Khomutov
Vic Hadfield - Jeremy Roenick - Daniel Alfredsson
Wayne Merrick - Brent Sutter - Jack Findlay

Tim Horton - Sergei Gonchar
Gary Suter - Steve Smith
Dickie Boon - "Taffy" Abel
Marty Burke

Vladimir Myshkin
George Hainsworth​

Soviet MVP one season, Khomutov's speed and scoring against Canada in the '80s at every tourney (Canada Cups, Olympics, World championships,) is absolutely worldclass; Alfie is an ideal third liner in this thing imo, and with rough and tumble young Jeremy and enforcer-able scoring Hadfield on the line the 3rd can play against Tigers 3rd and 4th lines and make things happen; the 67's fourth line is SHUTDOWN talented, I adding Merrick of the Isles dynasty checking line and Findlay, deemed best penalty killer of the 1890s. If this team gets a one-goal lead, it can protect it.

Burke is listed as a 7th dman but will certainly see ice time if needed, as Burke was seen as important in back-to-back Habs championships, a solid defensive presence used to heavy minutes in the early 1930s.

Myshkin was the best goalie of the '84 Canada Cup and shutout Canada in the '79 Challenge Cup final so he is capable of greatness AS A STARTER despite one famous bad performance coming off of the bench suddenly during a bad game for Tretiak.

In a 7-game series, Ottawa can take Medicine Hat. The replacements are a testament to that.

Myshkin ahead of Hainsworth? I know some around here have a distrust of Hainsworth since many of his accomplishments came pre-29. But Myshkin was the 71st goalie taken. He's a big-time drop-off from Hainsworth, and come playoff time, he's far beneath the level of a Billy smith, who is among the great playoff goalies ever.

The other problem with this move is the impact it has on the locker room. You go with a guy all season. And then before the playoffs start, you switch goalies. Moves like this create a fractured locker room, and they create goaltender controversies. And it really is a slap in the face to Hainsworth and your back-up. (Henrik Lundquist, right?)

I like Khomutov's skill level. I don't think he's good enough for second line duty in the ATD. Again, we're talking about a guy who has usually been selected in the MLD (which I believe is where he belongs), and who was selected as a call-up. He's not at the level of a Daniel Alfredsson or an Alexander Mogilny. (Okay, he's better than Mogilny when Mogilny is sulking, but he's still not as good offensively as Aflie).

Keep one thing in mind with Khomutov: his MVP came in 1990, after Makarov, Larionov, Krutov, Fetisov and Kasatonov had defected to North America. And Bure, Mogilny, Fedorov and Slava Kozlov were still young players in 1990. So the level of competition wasn't as strong as it had been.

The performance in the 87 Canada Cup was impressive. Performances at the Olympics and World Championships? They don't do as much for me. And he was pointless in the 81 Canada Cup.

And how good was Khomutov defensively? With Clarke and Alfie on that line, you had a trio that you could employ against the opposition's best. And while Clarke is an amazing two-way player (he's one of our boys), Stevens wasn't strong defensively. It means that you might lose that opportunity to employ a strong defensive line as your second line.

One-goal game? I still like our chances. I always like our chances in a one-goal game when we have Billy Smith. I like them a lot more when we're playing against the 71st goalie taken, as opposed to Hainsworth. And we have good offensive potential from all four of our lines (excellent offensive potential from our first two), a defence that can definitely be involved offensively, and we have a team with terrific team defence. Our defencemen are strong in their own zone, and our forwards are very, very good at backchecking.

 

[Leafs Forever]

The other problem with this move is the impact it has on the locker room. You go with a guy all season. And then before the playoffs start, you switch goalies. Moves like this create a fractured locker room, and they create goaltender controversies. And it really is a slap in the face to Hainsworth and your back-up. (Henrik Lundquist, right?)

I'll just address this point since we went through it in our MLD series as well when I switched goalies; fact is, goalie switching happens plenty in the playoffs, and it does not lead to catastrophe.

Take for example, the 05/06 Hurricanes; Gerber took most of the load in the regular season. When playoff time come, they run with rookie Cam Ward who wins the conn smythe on the way to the Hurricanes winning the cup.

Or an even more modern example, last year's Capitals. Theodore played poorly, and so they went with Valmrov who played 6 games in the regular season. Surely that Surely that should have destroyed the lockerrom, by your logic? Valmrov would go on to play very well on the Caps beating the Rangers and taking the eventualy cup champs to a thrilling seven game series (well, thrilling other than game 7).

I'm not going to hold switching a goalie like that unless the guy has a history or specifici nstance of the real world with other goalies userping him.

Of course, I will hold degared goalie level if a goalie degrade if evident in a switch; which it is likely in this case.

 

[God Bless Canada]

I'll just address this point since we went through it in our MLD series as well when I switched goalies; fact is, goalie switching happens plenty in the playoffs, and it does not lead to catastrophe.

Take for example, the 05/06 Hurricanes; Gerber took most of the load in the regular season. When playoff time come, they run with rookie Cam Ward who wins the conn smythe on the way to the Hurricanes winning the cup.

Or an even more modern example, last year's Capitals. Theodore played poorly, and so they went with Valmrov who played 6 games in the regular season. Surely that Surely that should have destroyed the lockerrom, by your logic? Valmrov would go on to play very well on the Caps beating the Rangers and taking the eventualy cup champs to a thrilling seven game series (well, thrilling other than game 7).

I'm not going to hold switching a goalie like that unless the guy has a history or specifici nstance of the real world with other goalies userping him.

Of course, I will hold degared goalie level if a goalie degrade if evident in a switch; which it is likely in this case.

You're making an apples and oranges comparison.

Washington and Carolina both gave their No. 1s a shot. In this case, Ottawa is putting Myshkin in at the start of the series. That's the difference.

In Carolina, Gerber was given a full game, and part of Game 2. He was battling the flu, and he played horrible. When they inserted Ward midway through Game 2, it changed the whole complexion of the series. (Although Carolina was within a period of falling behind 3-0 in the series).

In Washington, Theodore was given the start in Game 1, and he was terrible. Allowed three goals in the first period against a Rangers squad with a pop gun offence. Varlamov went in for Game 2, played well (granted, the 08-09 Rangers had a tendency to make goalies look good) and was given the ball for the two rounds in which the Caps played.

Those teams gave their goalies a chance. And those goalies failed. In this instance, the 67s aren't even giving Hainsworth and Lundquist a chance to play. They're going with Myshkin right off the bat.

 

[MXD]

Say, I could trade you Johnny Mowers you know...

Or even Lorne Chabot, for the right price.

The right price would be Gary Suter, he'd be terrific with Ted Harris on my third pairing.

 

[VanIslander]

Take your ridicule and disrespect and shove it.

Vladimir Myshkin, was tourney all-star at the 1984 Canada Cup as the starter, won Canada Cup '81 coming off the bench, shut out the NHLers in his '79 Challenge Cup final start.

The argument of GBC against him is ridiculous.

Anyways, number one seeds advance. See you all in another life.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Take your ridicule and disrespect and shove it.

Vladimir Myshkin, was tourney all-star at the 1984 Canada Cup as the starter, won Canada Cup '81 coming off the bench, shut out the NHLers in his '79 Challenge Cup final start.

The argument of GBC against him is ridiculous.

Anyways, number one seeds advance. See you all in another life.

He's the 71st goalie picked. How is that ridiculous? Thirty-two teams passed on him. Twice. You passed on him. Once. Yet you're trying to push him as a guy who can be your guy in the playoffs. You're trying to sell him as being better than an HHOFer that a lot of hockey people hold in very high regard. (Granted, Hainsworth is probably the second-most polarizing goalie in the ATD, but he's still better than your new No. 1).

Our No. 3 (Bill Ranford) won a Canada Cup. He was a Canada Cup all-star, too. I like Canada Cup/World Cup accolades far more than World Championship or pre-98 Olympic accomplishments. But the bottom line is that the Canada Cup/World Cup is a short tournament. A goalie can get hot and play above his head for two weeks. I think Ranford's Stanley Cup and Conn Smythe in 1990 is more significant and more impressive than his Canada Cup and tournament all-star selection in 1991. But that's just me.

 

[jarek]

He's the 71st goalie picked. How is that ridiculous? Thirty-two teams passed on him. Twice. You passed on him. Once. Yet you're trying to push him as a guy who can be your guy in the playoffs. You're trying to sell him as being better than an HHOFer that a lot of hockey people hold in very high regard. (Granted, Hainsworth is probably the second-most polarizing goalie in the ATD, but he's still better than your new No. 1).

Our No. 3 (Bill Ranford) won a Canada Cup. He was a Canada Cup all-star, too. I like Canada Cup/World Cup accolades far more than World Championship or pre-98 Olympic accomplishments. But the bottom line is that the Canada Cup/World Cup is a short tournament. A goalie can get hot and play above his head for two weeks. I think Ranford's Stanley Cup and Conn Smythe in 1990 is more significant and more impressive than his Canada Cup and tournament all-star selection in 1991. But that's just me.

So where does that put Valeri Kharlamov? Just a guy who got hot when he managed to score at a 3 point per game pace and then another great pace at the '72 Summit Series and then never come even close again, along with not having really elite finishes in the RSL? His biggest achievements came in short international tournaments, yet I see noone holding that against him. Myshkin is a very good, very underrated goalie that deserves your respect. If VI loses this series, it isn't because of his goaltending, I'm sorry.

Oh, you probably don't want to hear that he led 3 tournaments (79 Challenge Cup, and 85 Canada Cup and World Championship) in GAA, along with leading the Challenge Cup and Canada Cup in shutouts as well.

For what it's worth, I've looked at Myshkin as a potential backup in the past.

 

[God Bless Canada]

So where does that put Valeri Kharlamov? Just a guy who got hot when he managed to score at a 3 point per game pace and then another great pace at the '72 Summit Series and then never come even close again, along with not having really elite finishes in the RSL? His biggest achievements came in short international tournaments, yet I see noone holding that against him. Myshkin is a very good, very underrated goalie that deserves your respect. If VI loses this series, it isn't because of his goaltending, I'm sorry.

Oh, you probably don't want to hear that he led 3 tournaments (79 Challenge Cup, and 85 Canada Cup and World Championship) in GAA, along with leading the Challenge Cup and Canada Cup in shutouts as well.

For what it's worth, I've looked at Myshkin as a potential backup in the past.

I can buy into Myshkin as a back-up. Just like I can buy into Ranford (and several other call-up goalies, like Kolzig, Kipper and Henry) as back-ups. But Myshkin as a No. 1? No. Especially when Ottawa has Hainsworth, and they've been going with Hainsworth all year. George at least deserved a chance to hang himself.

A world of difference between 72 and a Canada Cup, World Cup or post-98 Olympics. 72 was a long series. It was a "best-of-eight." Teams had a chance to make adjustments after each game. You didn't get that in 81 Canada Cup, or the 04 World Cup, or in the Olympics. Summit accomplishments aren't the be-all and end-all - if they were, Paul Henderson would be a first liner in the ATD. But there's never been anything like Summit in the history of the game: it was as close to a best-on-best series, and it was played out over a pretty long period of time (eight games).

In terms of accomplishments, where is the difference between Myshkin and Ranford? Ranford has a Conn Smythe, and all-star selections at the Canada Cup and World Championships.

Also worth noting on Kharlamov: he won back-to-back MVP trophies in the Soviet Union. So I'm not sure why "not having really elite finishes in the RSL" is an issue.

 

[jarek]

I can buy into Myshkin as a back-up. Just like I can buy into Ranford (and several other call-up goalies, like Kolzig, Kipper and Henry) as back-ups. But Myshkin as a No. 1? No. Especially when Ottawa has Hainsworth, and they've been going with Hainsworth all year. George at least deserved a chance to hang himself.

A world of difference between 72 and a Canada Cup, World Cup or post-98 Olympics. 72 was a long series. It was a "best-of-eight." Teams had a chance to make adjustments after each game. You didn't get that in 81 Canada Cup, or the 04 World Cup, or in the Olympics. Summit accomplishments aren't the be-all and end-all - if they were, Paul Henderson would be a first liner in the ATD. But there's never been anything like Summit in the history of the game: it was as close to a best-on-best series, and it was played out over a pretty long period of time (eight games).

In terms of accomplishments, where is the difference between Myshkin and Ranford? Ranford has a Conn Smythe, and all-star selections at the Canada Cup and World Championships.

Also worth noting on Kharlamov: he won back-to-back MVP trophies in the Soviet Union. So I'm not sure why "not having really elite finishes in the RSL" is an issue.

Noone really knows how much merit those MVP awards they gave out in Russia have.

 

[overpass]

Noone really knows how much merit those MVP awards they gave out in Russia have.

While I don't always agree with MVP voters, I can't imagine why Russian awards should be any less valid within their context than North American awards. Russians are perfectly able to watch and evaluate hockey players.

 

[jarek]

While I don't always agree with MVP voters, I can't imagine why Russian awards should be any less valid within their context than North American awards. Russians are perfectly able to watch and evaluate hockey players.

The thing is that we don't know how much influence popularity had on those awards at all. Kharlamov built up a strong MVP voting record, which puzzles me because he brought little to the table beyond offense. The only real justification for it may be that he was a much better playmaker than his stats show, which may make sense given his speed and stickhandling abilities. Beyond that, I don't know. He was a very talented player, but not so talented that he couldn't be outvoted for MVP awards.

 

[God Bless Canada]

The thing is that we don't know how much influence popularity had on those awards at all. Kharlamov built up a strong MVP voting record, which puzzles me because he brought little to the table beyond offense. The only real justification for it may be that he was a much better playmaker than his stats show, which may make sense given his speed and stickhandling abilities. Beyond that, I don't know. He was a very talented player, but not so talented that he couldn't be outvoted for MVP awards.

Not sure how European leagues credited assists back when Kharlamov played, but I know that in many overseas leagues now, it's hard to get credit for second assist. You have to do something pretty impressive to be credited with a second assist on a goal. It is awarded differently in many leagues over there than it is in North America. So assist totals aren't necessarily a fair reflection of playmaking ability.

And MVP voting could be a reflection of different priorities. The average Soviet voter in 1972 could be looking for different things than the average North American voter in 1972.

 

[jarek]

Not sure how European leagues credited assists back when Kharlamov played, but I know that in many overseas leagues now, it's hard to get credit for second assist. You have to do something pretty impressive to be credited with a second assist on a goal. It is awarded differently in many leagues over there than it is in North America. So assist totals aren't necessarily a fair reflection of playmaking ability.

And MVP voting could be a reflection of different priorities. The average Soviet voter in 1972 could be looking for different things than the average North American voter in 1972.

That's true too. It may very well have been largely about "flash". Kharlamov was very much known for that.

 

[God Bless Canada]

That's true too. It may very well have been largely about "flash". Kharlamov was very much known for that.

There is such a thing as style points. A guy who gets 50 goals with flair and style is more likely to get awards and all-star votes than the guy who gets 50 goals by driving to the front of the net and picking up the garbage. Whether that's the right philosophy or not is another debate for another team. On one hand, I believe that a goal is a goal. And as I'm sure you guys have figured out, I love a crash-the-net, crash-and-bang type of game. At the same time, the "style points" guy is the one who really makes things happen out there offensively. He's the one that defences usually take account of, and it is usually more difficult to stop the style points guy than the garbage goals guy.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

So where does that put Valeri Kharlamov? Just a guy who got hot when he managed to score at a 3 point per game pace and then another great pace at the '72 Summit Series and then never come even close again, along with not having really elite finishes in the RSL? His biggest achievements came in short international tournaments, yet I see noone holding that against him. Myshkin is a very good, very underrated goalie that deserves your respect. If VI loses this series, it isn't because of his goaltending, I'm sorry.

Oh, you probably don't want to hear that he led 3 tournaments (79 Challenge Cup, and 85 Canada Cup and World Championship) in GAA, along with leading the Challenge Cup and Canada Cup in shutouts as well.

For what it's worth, I've looked at Myshkin as a potential backup in the past.

Kharlamov has the best MVP voting record during his (admittedly short) prime of any player in Russia. He's also considered the best player (or one of the best players) by fans of Soviet hockey who actually watched the games. Myshkin... not so much.

 

[seventieslord]

Kharlamov has the best MVP voting record during his (admittedly short) prime of any player in Russia. He's also considered the best player (or one of the best players) by fans of Soviet hockey who actually watched the games. Myshkin... not so much.

Do you mean "any skater"? because Tretiak's MVP record is pretty awesome.