Does anything change if the Soviets pulled their goalie in big games?

[Big Phil]

Interesting points here. The Soviets for some reason never pulled their goalie back in the day. I mean, never even TRIED. Look no further than 1972. The last three games of the Summit Series were lost by a goal. Maybe in Game 8 it is hard to score with 34 seconds left but there was plenty of time in the other two games. Not even an attempt. It was a combination of never practicing it and not wanting to get scored on with the empty net. From a team that was always so organized it was bizarre they never learned how to do this.

But it wasn't just 1972. It was 1980 as well. Lots of time to make up for the Eruzione goal and they had time in the U.S. end where the puck was basically just going along the boards back and forth for a bit. An extra player might make a difference.

Lastly, the 1987 Canada Cup. 1:26 left in the game after the Lemieux goal but they don't even try to pull Mylnikov and never threaten to score either.

The other game is in 1976 down 3-1 to Canada in the final round robin game. This game decided who played the Czechs in the final. Canada was in control the whole game, but then again, you never know what can happen with the goalie pulled. However, the first three examples are critical times when they didn't do this and it may have changed the outcome.

Click to read more...

 

[Sentinel]

The tradition of goal differential that came from soccer mattered to them.

I have heard an argument -- get ready to pick up your jaw from the floor -- that Soviets actually WON the 1972 Summit Series because they had the better goal differential than Canada.

 

[Canadiens1958]

And the NY Yankees won the 1960 WS since they outscored Pittsburgh 54 to 27 in runs. Pittsburgh won 4 games to 3.

Soviets ran 5 skater units with a patterned offence, preset plays. Sixth man would get in the way.

 

[Killion]

And the NY Yankees won the 1960 WS since they outscored Pittsburgh 54 to 27 in runs. Pittsburgh won 4 games to 3.

Soviets ran 5 skater units with a patterned offence, preset plays. Sixth man would get in the way.

Indeed so.... you a Baseball fan as well C58?.... Montreal Royals beat my Toronto Maple Leafs in 1958's Governors Cup, Intl League Championships, though Montreal lost to the Minneapolis Millers in the Junior World Series of the old American League thereafter 4-0. Uh? You watch that, live, radio?.... That old Royals franchise has quite the history... first to break the color barrier... launched the careers of a lot of Hall of Famer's.... Olde Montreal Royals HC as well. Lots of great players, some beautiful jerseys over the years. Extremely popular.

And ya... not seeing the Soviets pulling their Goalie under any set of circumstances quite frankly. Anathema to their entire philosophy, approach, system of play. Thats desperate hockey and if the Russians found themselves down by 1 late in a game theyd up the tempo & skate faster, pass a lot more than the already heady pace demanded. Apply pressure. The Goalie may be expected to play out a bit further, corralling the puck & playing it between his crease & the blue line should the opposition gain position & start in with the dump ins in an attempt to run the clock down though. More integration, interaction with the 5 man unit than was situation normal back in the day.

 

[Doctor No]

And the NY Yankees won the 1960 WS since they outscored Pittsburgh 54 to 27 in runs. Pittsburgh won 4 games to 3.

Yes, but the Yankees and the Pirates both knew beforehand what it meant to "win the series".

Is there any evidence out there that the Canadians and the Soviets agreed beforehand on what it meant to win the Summit Series? (It's not like it's an obvious conclusion that the number of games won would be the determinant - and it wasn't that long before the Summit Series where Stanley Cup playoff series were based upon total goals scored.)

 

[Canadiens1958]

Yes, but the Yankees and the Pirates both knew beforehand what it meant to "win the series".

Is there any evidence out there that the Canadians and the Soviets agreed beforehand on what it meant to win the Summit Series? (It's not like it's an obvious conclusion that the number of games won would be the determinant - and it wasn't that long before the Summit Series where Stanley Cup playoff series were based upon total goals scored.)

So did the Soviets and Canada in 1972 per the link:

1972 SUMMIT SERIES - Canada.ca

Key paragraph.

Team Canada lost the next game, 5-4, but rallied to win the Games 6 and 7 by scores of 3-2 and 4-3 with Paul Henderson scoring the winning goals in both games. Going into the final game, the series was tied. By IIHF rules the Soviets, with their superior goal differential, could claim victory in the series if the game ended in a tie. Canada had to win! Going into the third period leading by a score of 5 to 3, the Soviets seemed assured of victory, but the Canadians showed the heart, determination and individual effort that the Soviets would come to admire. Phil Esposito and Yvan Cournoyer scored to tie the game, and with only 34 seconds left Henderson scored his famous goal, which some still consider the greatest moment in Canadian sports history.

 

[Doctor No]

Perfect - thank you. How "IIHF sanctioned" was the Summit series?

 

[Theokritos]

Perfect - thank you. How "IIHF sanctioned" was the Summit series?

The IIHF paved the way by allowing the Soviets to play against NHLers without consequences for their Olympic egilibility, but that's it. IIHF rules didn't apply. In fact Hockey Canada and the Soviet hockey federation agreed on a set of hybrid rules prior to the series.

Now I'm not sure whether that agreement explicitly stated what the conditions to win the series, both sides probably only agreed to play 8 games against each other without further specifying that winning more games was the criterion. Probably that was just an unwritten takeaway and assumption shared by both sides. But it's also possible they did agree on that criterion in writing. Goal differential, however, was certainly not a part of the agreement, otherwise the Canadians wouldn't have been surprised when the Soviets brought this up.

So the more adequate wording would be: "By IIHF custom the Soviets, with their superior goal differential, could claim victory in the series if the game ended in a tie" (since no team had won more games than the other).

 

[Canadiens1958]

The IIHF paved the way by allowing the Soviets to play against NHLers without consequences for their Olympic egilibility, but that's it. IIHF rules didn't apply. In fact Hockey Canada and the Soviet hockey federation agreed on a set of hybrid rules prior to the series.

Now I'm not sure whether that agreement explicitly stated what the conditions to win the series, both sides probably only agreed to play 8 games against each other without further specifying that winning more games was the criterion. Probably that was just an unwritten takeaway and assumption shared by both sides. But it's also possible they did agree on that criterion in writing. Goal differential, however, was certainly not a part of the agreement, otherwise the Canadians wouldn't have been surprised when the Soviets brought this up.

So the more adequate wording would be: "By IIHF custom the Soviets, with their superior goal differential, could claim victory in the series if the game ended in a tie" (since no team had won more games than the other).

Playing against pros or re-instated pros without losing Olympic eligibility was allowed by the IIHF going back into the 1950s. 1955 Soviets played against the Penticton Vs with re-instated pros, touring teams in 1964 and 1965 played against pros like Doug Harvey,Gump Worsley, Jacques Plante and others without fear of losing Olympic eligibility.

By the way your re-write only makes matters worse. The goal differential tie-breaker is neutral, would have been applicable to both teams,not only the Soviets as presented by you.

Second bolded qualifier should read "if neither team won more games",making the condition applicable to both teams in a forward looking fashion not retrospective.

 

[MaxV]

I have heard an argument -- get ready to pick up your jaw from the floor -- that Soviets actually WON the 1972 Summit Series because they had the better goal differential than Canada.

They never claimed that.

They would have claimed a victory (unofficial of course) had the last game ended in a draw because goal differential mattered in their tournaments.

They never practiced situations where goalies are pulled, as at that time international competition wasn’t a single elimination format. You could lose in the final round and still get the gold. Same format was followed in their domestic league.

 

[Theokritos]

Playing against pros or re-instated pros without losing Olympic eligibility was allowed by the IIHF going back into the 1950s. 1955 Soviets played against the Penticton Vs with re-instated pros, touring teams in 1964 and 1965 played against pros like Doug Harvey,Gump Worsley, Jacques Plante and others without fear of losing Olympic eligibility.

Re-instated pros aren't the issue here.

The Soviets had played against amateur teams with a few pros added before, but not against teams fully consisting of pros. This was an issue, in particular since IOC president Avery Brundage went on a vocal campaign against pro sports in the early 1970s.

By the way your re-write only makes matters worse. The goal differential tie-breaker is neutral, would have been applicable to both teams,not only the Soviets as presented by you.

That argument of yours applies to both the first version and my we-write, so my we-write doesn't make anything worse. Point is that IIHF rules didn't apply to the series.

Second bolded qualifier should read "if neither team won more games",making the condition applicable to both teams in a forward looking fashion not retrospective.

You're late by 46 years. Hockey Canada and the Soviet hockey federation should have put that condition into the agreement in 1972. I'm only pointing out that the goal-differential criterion wasn't in the agreement, it was brought up ad-hoc by the Soviets when – to the general surprise – the series looked like it could be heading towards a tie.

 

[MaxV]

It was an exhibition tournament. Sides didn’t feel it was necessary to put elaborate rules into place.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Re-instated pros aren't the issue here.

The Soviets had played against amateur teams with a few pros added before, but not against teams fully consisting of pros. This was an issue, in particular since IOC president Avery Brundage went on a vocal campaign against pro sports in the early 1970s.



That argument of yours applies to both the first version and my we-write, so my we-write doesn't make anything worse. Point is that IIHF rules didn't apply to the series.



You're late by 46 years. Hockey Canada and the Soviet hockey federation should have put that condition into the agreement in 1972. I'm only pointing out that the goal-differential criterion wasn't in the agreement, it was brought up ad-hoc by the Soviets when – to the general surprise – the series looked like it could be heading towards a tie.

Harvey,Plante and Worsley were never reinstated they were pros. Clearly stated in my post. NCAA is equally opposed and was at the same time to mingling in any fashion with pros. Relevent to how contemporary USA Olympic Teams were viewed by the IIHF.

That the IIHF may have had a double standard is another issue.

The IIHF could only sanction the series since that was the extent of its jurisdiction.

 

[Sentinel]

They never claimed that.

They would have claimed a victory (unofficial of course) had the last game ended in a draw because goal differential mattered in their tournaments.

They never practiced situations where goalies are pulled, as at that time international competition wasn’t a single elimination format. You could lose in the final round and still get the gold. Same format was followed in their domestic league.

Officials didn't claim that. Some fans did. Still do.

 

[Big Phil]

It was an exhibition tournament. Sides didn’t feel it was necessary to put elaborate rules into place.

Not exactly. The idea was that Canada was going to mop the floor with them. The Soviets were supposed to "learn" things from Canada. Yeah, right. Very few Canadians with the exception of perhaps Harry Sinden thought the series would be close. So there probably wasn't a thing in place to decide the winner of the series if it was tied after 8 games. I mean, who would have thought that? No one, really. So let's face it, the Soviets took this very seriously.

I can see maybe in 1972 if they are used to certain tournaments going a specific way and not practicing pulling the goalie. But they should have made the adjustments necessary after 1972. Canada didn't practice the shootout in 1998 and it burned them. Since then, we've been prepared. The Soviets weren't even prepared by 1987 on how to pull the goalie and they also weren't good at faceoffs either even by then. They had a strict system, and it won them a lot of games over the years but no doubt they didn't practice things if they are trailing in the game. It is almost as if something like this didn't come up in their minds. They may have lost a tournament because of this.

 

[VMBM]

But it wasn't just 1972. It was 1980 as well. Lots of time to make up for the Eruzione goal and they had time in the U.S. end where the puck was basically just going along the boards back and forth for a bit. An extra player might make a difference.

It was a little different in 1980 than in game 8 of the Summit Series or Canada Cups.

Not that they would have pulled the goalie anyway, but the Soviets still had a small chance to win gold even after the US game; both teams had one game left (USSR vs Sweden, USA vs Finland), and if Finland had beaten the Americans, the Soviets would have won the gold medal (as they destroyed Sweden 9-2 in their last game). Yes, with hindsight, they should have pulled the goalie to get at least a tie vs USA, but I don't think it was even an option during the game...