Espo on Tretiak

Zine

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
11,958
1,774
Rostov-on-Don
It appeared that the 1976 tour was taken seriously but, after that, it was considered nothing more serious than players take the all star game today. Let's not use these games as comparison.

Even if NHLers didn't take a few games seriously, it still would be easy to gage the level the Soviets were at (especially if they were AHL level like you say).

If an NHL team takes it easy while playing an AHL team, it still would be painfully obvious who the NHL squad is and the the AHL team is. This wasn't the case in those series. By and large, everybody was even - meaning the Soviet teams were at NHL level......even the lower level Soviet teams that came over.

Tretiak didn't play against NHL talent, but he played against NHL level talent.
 

mcphee

Registered User
Feb 6, 2003
19,101
8
Visit site
http://www.russianhockey.net/USSRvsNHL.htm

The joke: 1972-1979 NHL is overrated and european hockey is underrated. Most north-americans doesn't know anything about european hockey or anything else what is going outside north-america so they assume it's some ECHL level hockey.
Still not getting your joke. Here's a joke.

I'm walking down the street with Johhny Bower and Ken Dryden. We happen upon a naked woman lying on her back, unconscious in an alley. Mr. Dryden, ever the gentleman places his Canadiens cap over her left breast. Following his lead, I place my Montreal Expos cap on her right breast. Mr. Bower places his Leaf cap on her, well, you can figure where he placed his cap, again, a gentleman.

A policeman happened along, looked under my cap, Dryden's, then he lifted Bower's cap, and said, 'that's the strangest thing, I ever saw', I asked him to explain, and he said, ' usually you find an a hole under a Leaf cap'


That's a joke. You're theories about the quality of NHL teams in the 70's are just your opinion.

I was surprised at how long the touring Soviet teams kept coming. I hadn't realized that they continued past the early 80's. It became an issue for the players, getting them to play exhibition games.

So, still, while you assume North Americans know little about European hockey from that era, you've done nothing to show that you're any different. I hear our Russian posters talking about great performances of their teams, but always in terms of int'l play, never league play.
 

Nalyd Psycho

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
24,415
14
No Bandwagon
Visit site
Nalyd, I am really sorry. I didn't mean at all that all Canadian fans are biased. What I wanted to say was that there are some biased fans in Canada. But, probably, some time later even those fans would recognize how good Czech team was in the 70-ties. Anyway, I edited the previous post.

Not what I meant. I was saying that there are some Canadian hockey fans that appreciate the team now. No apology needed.
 

statistics

Registered User
Dec 29, 2006
326
0
Finland
I asked Kaizer if what we in Canada had perceived was true ? The old Soviet system top loaded their league to produce the best possible national team.

Do you have a problem with his answer or do you just have a problem with the NHL ? You're pretty transparent. At least say something rather than this 'everyone thinks' crap.

If the league was loaded in favor of Red Army,Dynamo, did it not affect the validity of the competition ?


1972-1979 soviet league only had 9-12 teams. That's why their league was a high quality league.

NHL + WHA had about 25 teams total (1974-1976 NHL had 18 teams and WHA had 14 teams, total 32 teams) and almost all players were canadian.

CSKA Soviet Union league 1972-1979:

Champion: 5 times of 7
Games played: 252
Wins: 182
Losses: 49
Ties: 21

Soviet league stats and standings: http://www.chidlovski.com/personal/1974/ussr/index.htm

CSKA was a great team, but it's not like soviets only had 15 good players (all the soviet national team players didn't play in the CSKA). Other teams were good too. Not as good as CSKA, but CSKA was one of the best if not the best team ever (I think they were the best team ever, but it's close).
 
Last edited:

canucksfan

Registered User
Mar 16, 2002
43,785
9,427
British Columbia
Visit site
Well, it's probably offtopic but anyway ...

I really don't understand such a logic:
If Canada (NHL team) won (or almost won like in Montreal in 75) it becomes "the big game", "the greatest game ever", etc
If Canada (NHL team) lost it was because they either didn't play together before or didn't take a game seriously or ..

For example, Super Series 75-76:
Red Army - NY Rangers 7:3 - silence;
Red Army - Montreal 3:3 - great game;
Red Army - Boston 5:2 - silence;
Red Army - Flyers 1:4 - great game, "Stanley Cup Winner is better that the best Soviet League Club", etc

Super Series 79-80:
Red Army - NY Islanders 3:2 - silence, despite the fact that NY Islanders was the Stanley Cup Winner!

That's a legitimate point. When I say "big game" I mean the ones that get publicity. Boston and the Rangers game don't get big publicity. After 76' I think the series wasn't considered important to the North American teams. You can see that because they usually dressed their back up goalie or gave their top line fourth line minutes. Even when the played Montreal on New Years Eve Lafleur wasn't playing on the first line.

I'm pretty sure that Trottier didn't play in the Islanders game but I might be wrong on that one.

Looking at all those games the most one sided game most likely that an NHL team won was the Flyers in 76'. It just goes to show you that they were a fantastic team and I don't think they get the credit that they deserve now. Furthermore, Parent didn't play and neither did MacLeish.
 

statistics

Registered User
Dec 29, 2006
326
0
Finland
The NHL was something of a joke during that time period.
It's just hockey in Europe was an even bigger joke :biglaugh:

Europe is not a country. There wasn't european league. It's Soviet league vs. NHL 1972-1979.

It's doesn't matter which was a better league. Only thing, that matters is that there were lot's of great players in europe. One of them was Tretiak and he was facing good players in the soviet league and international matches.

Think about this fact; Bobby Orr never played againts all the best players, because at his time there were virtually no europeans in the NHL. He didn't play 1972 vs. soviets and in 1976 Canada Cup soviets didn't have the best possible team.

Remember that most 5th and 6th defenseman's in the NHL couldn't skate in the 70s. It would be funny to see those players in european size rinks versus soviets or czechoslovakians.
 
Last edited:

Ogopogo*

Guest
Europe it's not a country. There wasn't european league. It's Soviet league vs. NHL 1972-1979.

It's doesn't matter which was a better league. Only thing, that matters is that there were lot's of great players in europe. One of them was Tretiak and he was facing good players in the soviet league and international matches.

Think about this fact; Bobby Orr never played againts all the best players, because at his time there were virtually no europeans in the NHL. He didn't play 1972 vs. soviets and in 1976 Canada Cup soviets didn't have the best possible team.

Remember that most 5th and 6th defenseman's in the NHL couldn't skate in the 70s. It would be funny to see those players in european size rinks versus soviets or czechoslovakians.

Honestly, it would be a helluva lot funnier to see how the 3 & 4 defensemen from those Czech or Soviet teams would have fared in the NHL.

The NHL was simply a better league. No amount of meaningless World Championships can prove otherwise.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
Do you have any evidence or are you just acting like a true redneck. Why the NHL was simply a better league?

LMAO.

What color of necks do people have in Finland?

How many European superstars came to the NHL and failed miserably? Krutov and several others that I don't even remember the names of. Isn't Nedomanksy one of the Czechs you made reference to? A pretty mediocre NHL career.

Tretiak said that Makarov was a better player than Gretzky. Based on his NHL numbers (compare numbers when they were at the same age) and it was not even close - in Gretzky's favor.

To this day, there are more Canadians than Europeans in the NHL and the Canadians as a group are better. The fact is, now that anyone can come over and cash in on the big payday, the little country of Canada still supplies the NHL with more players than all of Europe combined. If that's how it is today it was certainly a MUCH BIGGER gap in the 70s.

There is no evidence to support your premise that European leagues were equal to or better than the NHL in the 70s. The NHL has always been the best league on the planet.
 

statistics

Registered User
Dec 29, 2006
326
0
Finland
LMAO.

What color of necks do people have in Finland?

How many European superstars came to the NHL and failed miserably? Krutov and several others that I don't even remember the names of. Isn't Nedomanksy one of the Czechs you made reference to? A pretty mediocre NHL career.

Tretiak said that Makarov was a better player than Gretzky. Based on his NHL numbers (compare numbers when they were at the same age) and it was not even close - in Gretzky's favor.

To this day, there are more Canadians than Europeans in the NHL and the Canadians as a group are better. The fact is, now that anyone can come over and cash in on the big payday, the little country of Canada still supplies the NHL with more players than all of Europe combined. If that's how it is today it was certainly a MUCH BIGGER gap in the 70s.

There is no evidence to support your premise that European leagues were equal to or better than the NHL in the 70s. The NHL has always been the best league on the planet.

Most finns are an idiots, but europeans usually know more about geography and other countries culture than north-americans. If they don't know, they study and doesn't just assume something.

I never wrote that european leagues were better than NHL. I only wrote that Soviet league was better than NHL 1972-1979, but it's close.

Nedomansky wasn't in my list. Nedomansky came to WHA age of 30 and NHL age of 33. He was over to hill. Anyway his stats are pretty good:

WHA: 253 points, in 252 games. Playoffs 4 points, in 6 games.

NHL: 278 points, in 421 games. Playoffs 8 points, in 7 games.

Study some soviet / eastern european history, then you realize how big culture shock it was came to north-america from a communist society. Also these guys played their whole career in a bigger rink then came over about age of 30. Nowadays there's virtually no culture shock and it's much easier learn to play in a smaller rink when you came over age of 20 instead age of 30.

By the way many north-american NHL star failed in european leagues 2004-2005 season.
 
Last edited:

statistics

Registered User
Dec 29, 2006
326
0
Finland
LMAO.
To this day, there are more Canadians than Europeans in the NHL and the Canadians as a group are better. The fact is, now that anyone can come over and cash in on the big payday, the little country of Canada still supplies the NHL with more players than all of Europe combined. If that's how it is today it was certainly a MUCH BIGGER gap in the 70s.

Yes, more canadians than europeans but if you make team from europeans and put it againts team Canada and play 100 games. I think european all-star team win more games than Canada.

In the 70s Canada and Soviets were about even so european all-star team would have been a favorite againts Canada.

Canadians had more depth, but Soviet league had less teams!
 
Last edited:

Randall Graves*

Guest
Worlds best? Maybe the worlds best North Americans, I don't recall much of a european influence at that time.
 

statistics

Registered User
Dec 29, 2006
326
0
Finland
the little country of Canada still supplies the NHL with more players than all of Europe combined.


The little country of Canada have more registered players and more rinks than, Russia, Czech Rep., Sweden, Finland, Slovakia, Germany, and Switzerland combined. Also hockey is number one sports in Canada, so Canada get most of it's talented athletes to hockey players. Finland is only other country in the world where hockey is number one, but it's much closer in Finland with football (soccer) than with any other sports in Canada.

So I don't think that Canada is doing so well. Actually Swedes and Czechs are doing better, when you take account number of registered players and number of rinks and the fact that hockey is not number one sports in these countries.
 
Last edited:

Zine

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
11,958
1,774
Rostov-on-Don
There is no evidence to support your premise that European leagues were equal to or better than the NHL in the 70s. The NHL has always been the best league on the planet.

The evidence is in the Super Series.

Like I stated earlier (and you conveniently failed to respond), even if they were only exhibition games, if those Soviet squads weren't at NHL level it would've been extremely obvious. This is especially true considering nearly 100 games were played.

Does it really matter if an NHL team rested a superstar once in a while? Would an AHL team all of a sudden be able to beat Colorado if the Avs rested Sakic? Gimme a break.

The Soviet league of the 70's and early 80's WAS NHL level.
 

Nalyd Psycho

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
24,415
14
No Bandwagon
Visit site
Isn't Nedomanksy one of the Czechs you made reference to? A pretty mediocre NHL career.

I highly recommend you read some of BM67's defence of Nedomansky from the all-time draft:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=327553

The long and the short of it, Nedomansky started in the NHL at 33, he was born in 44, out of players born between 42 and 46, only one player was better offensively then Nedomansky after the age of 33, Phil Esposito. One can naturally assume the same would have been true 18-32.
 

Marcus-74

Registered User
Apr 27, 2005
165
1
Some decent players for sure but, I'll take the list of NHLers. Most of the players you mention built a career facing less than NHL-calibre competition. Howe and Hull were past their primes in the WHA.

Until this thread I have never even heard the name Martinec. I would take Esposito or Lafleur over him any day.

:shakehead

Why do you even send posts here then? Watching Martinec in the three games against Canada in the ´76 Canada Cup there´s nothing that proves to me he couldn´t have made it big in the NHL (for instance, he got 3 assists in those games and twice almost ended the 2nd final in the OT). Plus, Tretiak always named him among his most dangerous opponents.

I just don´t understand that someone with so little knowledge (of European hockey) continues to argue about things he clearly knows nothing about. Ignorance is bliss???!!!

I wish you would come up with something else than just parroting the same lines over and over again (ie. "AHL-calibre opponents").

BTW, it really amazes me that some still consider Team Czechoslovakia to have been AHL-level. For umpteenth time I would like to know: why did the best Team Canada ever (=Team Canada ´76) lose to them and had another life and death game decided in the OT? Shouldn´t they have had 3 blowout wins instead of just one? Dzurilla was great (except in the 1st final) but Vachon was great, too. Plus, the Czechs won about 35 % of the games they played against the Soviets in the ´70s. And yet they are bums according to some? Life´s not fair... buhuu...

P.S. I would take the 1969-1973 Espo and the 1975-1979 Lafleur over Martinec also, but so what?
 
Last edited:

Marcus-74

Registered User
Apr 27, 2005
165
1
And against every Espo and Clarke rant (about Tretiak) there´s always goal-scoring greats like Bobby Hull and Gretzky who both - I believe - consider Tretiak to be perhaps the greatest goalie of all-time. Personally, I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle; Tretiak could be both breathtaking and mediocre. Behind Hasek, at least...

Could he have made it in the NHL? Dunno. But again, there´s nothing suggesting that he wouldn´t have. He almost always "beat" the other goalie when facing the "almighty" NHL opposition.
 

hfboardsuser

Registered User
Nov 18, 2004
12,280
0
LMAO.
How many European superstars came to the NHL and failed miserably? Krutov and several others that I don't even remember the names of. Isn't Nedomanksy one of the Czechs you made reference to? A pretty mediocre NHL career.

So your best counter-evidence is an overweight Russian and a player who didn't get to the NHL until age 33?
 

mcphee

Registered User
Feb 6, 2003
19,101
8
Visit site
1972-1979 soviet league only had 9-12 teams. That's why their league was a high quality league.

NHL + WHA had about 25 teams total (1974-1976 NHL had 18 teams and WHA had 14 teams, total 32 teams) and almost all players were canadian.

CSKA Soviet Union league 1972-1979:

Champion: 5 times of 7
Games played: 252
Wins: 182
Losses: 49
Ties: 21

Soviet league stats and standings: http://www.chidlovski.com/personal/1974/ussr/index.htm

CSKA was a great team, but it's not like soviets only had 15 good players (all the soviet national team players didn't play in the CSKA). Other teams were good too. Not as good as CSKA, but CSKA was one of the best if not the best team ever (I think they were the best team ever, but it's close).
The stats of CKSA,imo, become irrelvant in the Soviet league,by the way they were structured.


I wouldn't make an arguement about how many great players came out of the Soviet system. I've seen great players from the 4 countries that competitive hockey seemed to revolve around. No one denies that.

The NHL is a different story though. Teams that build themselves competitively, play a long season that terminates in a grueling playoff. That's what our players are trained to do, that's what they expect. That doesn't seem to be the same thing in Europe. The goals and structure are different. The game on large ice is different. Frankly, I find the tactical style of hockey played on large ice nearly unwatchable, something admitted by many current Russian players who prefer the small ice game.
I don't know how we can compare leagues where some teams could requisition the players they wanted. Frankly, I don't know anything about the quality of Finnish and Swedish leagues in the 70's.

The game evolved a lot in the years you point to. The effect of the WHA didn't exactly dilute the NHL. It hurt specific teams, Boston specifically lost 2 or 3 key players from a great team. It hurt the Rangers in that they overpaid their talent and developed a country club atmosphere. Other teams developed highly skilled teams. Not all of them won, Buffalo beinga great example. Anyone who watched the Soviet/NHL competitions at the time knows of Perreault and co.

The point isn't listing great players, it's league competition and validity. Montreal would still be winning Cup after Cup if they could simply choose every French Canadian superstar, rather than build thru the draft. Mario,Bourque and co. would have made a difference, but it would've taken away the league's credibility.

btw,guys, I know you're itching to post about they used to select the 2 best French Canadians every year, but that's your basic myth.
 

Reks

Registered User
Oct 23, 2006
247
2
Personally, I am just a fun of International Hockey 1972-1987:
both Summit Series, Challenge Cup, Canada Cups, World Championship rivarly between Soviets and Czecks in the 70-ties,
Super Series ...

IMO, it was better and more fun to watch than NHL of that time.

I think Canada and Soviet Union were equally good in those years with Czechs being almost as good as they were (in the 70-ties). And the main reason why I like that hockey is that all three countries had absolutely different style of play, though, soviet style was more fun to watch (IMO).
 

mcphee

Registered User
Feb 6, 2003
19,101
8
Visit site
And against every Espo and Clarke rant (about Tretiak) there´s always goal-scoring greats like Bobby Hull and Gretzky who both - I believe - consider Tretiak to be perhaps the greatest goalie of all-time. Personally, I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle; Tretiak could be both breathtaking and mediocre. Behind Hasek, at least...

Could he have made it in the NHL? Dunno. But again, there´s nothing suggesting that he wouldn´t have. He almost always "beat" the other goalie when facing the "almighty" NHL opposition.
I would put Hasek ahead, but it's difficult just in that I've seen Hasek in the game I know, so I don't have to imagine.

Keep in mind with Esposito is he enjoys the spotlight. He wouldn't disguise himself in public for fear he wouldn't be recognized. He's on satellite radio and he gets paid to give opinion, or maybe to create discussion. Now that he doesn't play against teams I pick for, I kind of like the guy. I'm not sure he wakes up every day believing what he said yesterday though. That's the nature of talk radio these days. If he had said, ' I don't think Tretiak would've been an all time great over the course of an NHL career, but we'll never know', there'd be no thread.

I'm guessing Espo would get a kick out of this. I get frustrated when I hear radio guys take silly extreme opinions, but my 'the truth is somewhere in the middle attitude' makes for boring radio. Reality doesn't sell, and Esposito knows this quite well.
 

Rexor

Registered User
Oct 24, 2006
1,455
309
Brno
The NHL was simply a better league. No amount of meaningless World Championships can prove otherwise.

I usually like your posts about the NHL but your lack of European hockey knowledge
is funny. How can you be so positive the NHL "was simply a better league". Just
because most of European players weren't allowed to play in the NHL due to political
reasons, so you couldn't see them playing? Alright, but they were allowed after the
fall of The Iron Curtain. The result?
In the period from 1991-2006:
Best goaltender, most Harts: Hašek (Euro)
Most Art Rosses: Jágr (Euro)
Most Norris Trophies: Lidstrom (Euro)
etc
What's your Top 10 of the world's best players during 1991-2006 period? Mine is Hašek, Jágr, Lidstrom, Bure, Forsberg, Lemieux, Bourgue, Sakic, Roy, Brodeur. It's 50/50.There's no reason to think it was significantly different between 1975-1990 for instance.
I don't get how you can say that the European hockey was less developed in the
70's. Russians were actually even better than now. People claim Kovalev and Yashin
are underachievers, I'm pretty sure these players wouldn't be floaters under someone like Tikhonov.Don't forget that the CSKA were an army team. Their players were soldiers and they were trained like soldiers. Makarov failed in the NHL since he missed this army discipline. Anyway, do you consider Kovalchuk, Ovechkin, Malkin, Frolov, Zubov,Kovalev, Datsyuk, Nabokov, Khabibulin etc worse or less talented than any of today's Canadian players? If not, then there's no reason to claim Kharlamov, Mikhailov, Petrov, Makarov, Firsov and others were worse than Canadian stars like Orr, Esposito, Potvin, Cournoyer or Lafleur.
Canada had more depth and was better overall than Czechoslovakia in the 70's,
I agree. But compared to USSR, I'm not sure at all.
And one can say the Stanley Cups won in the 70's and 80's are meaningless since
the best Euros were not allowed to play in the NHL that time. I don't agree with this,
but it's the same logic like that you are using in order to ridicule "meaningless World
Championships".
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->