How Good Was Gretzky?

Sens Rule

Registered User
Sep 22, 2005
21,251
73
Imagine Craig Janney x 10000. That's how good he was.

I don't think that does Gretzky Justice. :laugh:

It is so hard to compare him to anyone, his style of play was so unique. He is not even IMO comparable to Oates, Mario, H. Sedin. He was so different than everyone else.
 

shazariahl

Registered User
Apr 7, 2009
2,030
59
I don't think that does Gretzky Justice. :laugh:

It is so hard to compare him to anyone, his style of play was so unique. He is not even IMO comparable to Oates, Mario, H. Sedin. He was so different than everyone else.

I actually think Henrik is a decent comparison. If you take his playmaking sense with his brother, but then apply that to basically everyone Gretzky ever played with, you start to get a sense of his playmaking. Of course, that doesn't account for his goal scoring... and the fact that he could do either made him even better at both. You never knew if he was going to shoot or pass, and he was so deadly at each.
 

tazzy19

Registered User
Mar 27, 2008
2,268
116
This is really the essense of why Gretzky was so hard to understand. With everyone else you mention, they had a physical skillset that was so elite, it was very difficult to stop. But it was still just 1 guy. With Gretzky, it wasn't just him. He was dangerous with the puck, without the puck; it just didn't matter. No player in history was better at using their teammates so such great effect. And unlike traditional playmakers, he could also score 92 goals in a season, 50 in 39 games, 894 career goals, and all the other goal scoring records and milestones he set.
That's because his insane goal scoring (fastest to 400, fastest to 500, fastest to 600, fastest to 700, fastest to 800, and only one to 894) was mostly a function of his playmaking. It wasn't really the result of his wrist shot, his slapshot, or any other traditional goal scorer's weapon (although he certainly had many of these weapons to help him execute). His playmaking is what got him the most goals ever, just as much as it got him the most assists ever. Someone once said, "Hockey is geometry, and Gretzky understands this geometry better than anyone else in the history of hockey." Therefore his goal scoring was the result of his understanding of this geometry combined with the physical skills necessary to excecute that understanding.
 
Last edited:

revolverjgw

Registered User
Oct 6, 2003
8,483
19
Nova Scotia
I think the only thing tainted about Gretzky was that the league protected him. It was really a gutless league in that respect. We'll never know how good Gretzky was because he never played by the same rules as everybody else. Also, he embraced this treatment and even demanded it. Really Mickey Mouse!

What are your thoughts on the faked moon landings?
 

Merya

Jokerit & Finland; anti-theist
Sep 23, 2008
2,279
418
Helsinki
I actually think Henrik is a decent comparison. If you take his playmaking sense with his brother, but then apply that to basically everyone Gretzky ever played with, you start to get a sense of his playmaking. Of course, that doesn't account for his goal scoring... and the fact that he could do either made him even better at both. You never knew if he was going to shoot or pass, and he was so deadly at each.

I don't think you can really compare Gretzky accurately to any player. And certainly not Sedin. Gretzky's Greatness is rather supernatural. Sure some think Orr was better, but even those people will tell you, that it is much easier to analyze why Orr was great; in contrast to why on earth is that skinny Wayne so great.
I recommend watching Gretzky games. It's the only way to realize how far Wayne is above anyone else in that one aspect of the game that makes him the Great One.

To me, watching Gretzky in the 80s and early-mid 90s was like watching a superhero movie.
 

Sens Rule

Registered User
Sep 22, 2005
21,251
73
I don't think you can really compare Gretzky accurately to any player. And certainly not Sedin. Gretzky's Greatness is rather supernatural. Sure some think Orr was better, but even those people will tell you, that it is much easier to analyze why Orr was great; in contrast to why on earth is that skinny Wayne so great.
I recommend watching Gretzky games. It's the only way to realize how far Wayne is above anyone else in that one aspect of the game that makes him the Great One.

To me, watching Gretzky in the 80s and early-mid 90s was like watching a superhero movie.

The Sedin's cycle the puck and work hard to keep possession and pressure. That was not Gretzky's game at all. If there is one player that plays in a somewhat similar style I would say Brad Richards. Or solely offensively, Alfredsson later in his career has had some similarities. He can just keep the puck and wait and slow down the play until he is ready to make a pass. Of course Gretzky did this incredibly, he also did the same thing on the fast break, immediately making a pss before anyone could react. Or he could slow it down and hold possession for quite awhile and wait to make the perfect play.

Brad Richards is similar in that he can control the tempo of the game offensively, and plays very cerebral game over a physical one.

But really no one has ever been similar to Gretzky. Orr has Coffey who was similar. Mario is far more similar to Beliveau or Jagr or even Ovechkin than Gretzky is to anyone.

Anyone that saw Gretzky play a lot of games in the 1980's knows exactly how great Gretzky was. And how unique. You can't see it from the ridiculous records and stats, you can't see it from his days on the Rangers at the end of his career, he was not nearly the same player. You can't see it from highlight clips on YouTube. You can only see it in full games, or in a bunch of long clips.

It is like you took a really talented former NHL player who is coaching 10 year olds all stars. And the coach is playing in a game with the players, and just trying to set up sick plays, over and over, not get involved physically, avoiding contact from others and not initiating it either. Just repeatedly making sick play after sick play, occasionally taking a shot himself to keep the goalie and other team honest.

People that believe the "myth" that no one hit Gretzky, don't get it. People tried to hit him all the time, all through the game. Gretzky could avoid being hit so easily it is ridiculous. It was really like he was playing with children. He knew they were taking a run at him and he just shifted slightly away from everyone and ignored them and made passes. He would steal pucks from people, completely avoid contact with the guy he took pucks from.

Picture how you think a 40-45 year old Gretzky would play against a bunch of all-star 10 year old players, if he was coaching them and taking part in a high paced scrimage. That is really how he played in the NHL at his peak. Even though Gretzky was smallish and not strong it was like Men vs Boys.
 

Merya

Jokerit & Finland; anti-theist
Sep 23, 2008
2,279
418
Helsinki

Marry me? :P

Seriously your post was a very very good elaboration on Wayne's Greatness.
I sometimes like to propose an idea that he was playing a different game altogether. Chess on ice or something like that. Knowing all the openers, knowing their responses, seeing the board 12 moves ahead; and then innovating something totally new.
Or if for some it's easier to think in EA NHL series terms, Orr is an edited player with all stats at 99 or close. Gretzky is around 79-85 player, but you get to see the game 5 seconds ahead in a second monitor, and you get to play the actual game in your mainscreen at slowmotion.
 
Last edited:

tazzy19

Registered User
Mar 27, 2008
2,268
116
I actually think Henrik is a decent comparison. If you take his playmaking sense with his brother, but then apply that to basically everyone Gretzky ever played with, you start to get a sense of his playmaking. Of course, that doesn't account for his goal scoring... and the fact that he could do either made him even better at both. You never knew if he was going to shoot or pass, and he was so deadly at each.
I don't really agree that Henrik is a good comparison. Consider: Gretzky at age 37, playing with the likes of Niklas Sundstrum and Adam Graves, was scoring the same number of points Henrik is now in his prime playing with his twin brother. Add to that the physical skill set he had in his prime, and Gretzky's playmaking sense was executable in a way that was vastly superior to Henrik's, twin brother or no twin brother. Gretzky simply has no contemporaries in terms of his geometrical, space time understanding of the game of hockey.
 

golfortennis

Registered User
Oct 25, 2007
1,878
291
Someone posted a quote about Semenko saying "Don't ever think Gretzky can't see you on the ice." I've got another one. In Kevin Lowe's book(yes, he wrote a book), he mentions how one time around 83 or so, Gretzky mentions how he doesn't like to play the Islanders as much, or struggles with them. Well of course, they're multi-defending champs, with Denis Potvin on the blueline and Bryan Trottier up front. They give everybody fits.

No, that's not it. The Islanders' pants were a very similar blue to that of the Oilers, so Gretzky couldn't as quickly count how many teammates and opponents were around with his quick glance.

The pants? Seriously, are there 3 people who could have done that in the history of the game? I thought I had decent vision on the ice being able to see a teammate from the corner of my eye. There is no bloody way I could have glanced quickly and sized up the numbers for each team in the split second he could.
 

Rhiessan71

Just a Fool
Feb 17, 2003
11,618
24
Guelph, Ont
Visit site
Someone posted a quote about Semenko saying "Don't ever think Gretzky can't see you on the ice." I've got another one. In Kevin Lowe's book(yes, he wrote a book), he mentions how one time around 83 or so, Gretzky mentions how he doesn't like to play the Islanders as much, or struggles with them. Well of course, they're multi-defending champs, with Denis Potvin on the blueline and Bryan Trottier up front. They give everybody fits.

No, that's not it. The Islanders' pants were a very similar blue to that of the Oilers, so Gretzky couldn't as quickly count how many teammates and opponents were around with his quick glance.

The pants? Seriously, are there 3 people who could have done that in the history of the game? I thought I had decent vision on the ice being able to see a teammate from the corner of my eye. There is no bloody way I could have glanced quickly and sized up the numbers for each team in the split second he could.

In this same vein, Gretzky used to count the seconds in his head as he played as well.
Oh and for the record...Wayne told people before the start of the 85/86 season that he was going to go out and tally more assists than anyone else had ever had points.

This is the thing the "kids" around here today fail to understand....he had more freakin assists in one season then anyone else other than 2 seasons from Mario even had points....it's ridiculous really.
 
Last edited:

VanIslander

A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sep 4, 2004
35,130
6,428
... so many people insist that the game has gotten bigger, that the pace is different, that the league is just much harder.

Would Gretzky still be a generational talent in this league?
As an older player in the Dead Puck era he still was top-5 in assists his last five seasons, a 2nd team all-star his final two seasons. THAT was an NHL with lots of hitting, cheapshots, clutching and grabbing.

In today's NHL where a player cannot be touched if he doesn't have the puck and hits are much cleaner and no clutching and grabbing of the puck carrier is tolerated, EVEN AN OLDER GRETZKY would dominant. There's no way in hell that speed or pace would slow the one guy who always was a step ahead of everyone else mentally. He would be just fantastic.
 

Lafleurs Guy

Guuuuuuuy!
Jul 20, 2007
73,920
42,975
I'm not having a go at him, because I never watched him play except as a very young child, but I will say this; so many people insist that the game has gotten bigger, that the pace is different, that the league is just much harder.

Would Gretzky still be a generational talent in this league?
I think so. Folks didn't think that Mario could cut it when he came back and he was absolutely incredible. I think Gretz would still dominate.
 

shazariahl

Registered User
Apr 7, 2009
2,030
59
I don't really agree that Henrik is a good comparison. Consider: Gretzky at age 37, playing with the likes of Niklas Sundstrum and Adam Graves, was scoring the same number of points Henrik is now in his prime playing with his twin brother. Add to that the physical skill set he had in his prime, and Gretzky's playmaking sense was executable in a way that was vastly superior to Henrik's, twin brother or no twin brother. Gretzky simply has no contemporaries in terms of his geometrical, space time understanding of the game of hockey.

I didn't mean to imply that Henrik is anywhere near the playmaker Gretzky was, with his brother or without. But Henrik does a lot of the no-look passes to his brother, and they're usually tape to tape. I mostly meant that if you could take a guy with that ability, but apply it to everyone he played with, not just his brother, then add in elite goal scoring abilities on top, you begin to get a sense of what Gretzky was like, only Gretzky was still much better. He obviously has no comparison today and I will probably go to my grave insisting that he was the greatest player of all time. I was simply trying to draw a comparison for the OP, who seemed to be looking someone to relate Gretzky's game and style to.
 

tazzy19

Registered User
Mar 27, 2008
2,268
116
I didn't mean to imply that Henrik is anywhere near the playmaker Gretzky was, with his brother or without. But Henrik does a lot of the no-look passes to his brother, and they're usually tape to tape. I mostly meant that if you could take a guy with that ability, but apply it to everyone he played with, not just his brother, then add in elite goal scoring abilities on top, you begin to get a sense of what Gretzky was like, only Gretzky was still much better. He obviously has no comparison today and I will probably go to my grave insisting that he was the greatest player of all time. I was simply trying to draw a comparison for the OP, who seemed to be looking someone to relate Gretzky's game and style to.
Yes, that's true. I see what you're saying now.

To answer another poster about Gretzky's 85-86 season where he had 163 assists: In his autobiography, Gretzky said he secretly was trying to achieve 2 assists per game since 84 (if I remember correctly), and did it in 85-86. Even more amazing is he was somehow able to score over 50 goals the same season. Mind boggling really. Someone posted in the other thread that a prime Gretzky would be able to score 60 goals and 190 assists for 250 points on a line with Jari Kurri and Mario Lemieux. As far fetched as that sounds at first, it really isn't when you think about it. Gretzky scored 52 goals and 163 assists without Mario Lemieux afterall. Could Lemieux have given him an extra 8 goals and 27 assists? I would think so. Gretzky was the best ever at getting the most out of great players. Put Gretzky on a great team and put Mario Lemieux on a great team and Gretzky beats Lemieux in scoring 9 times out of 10. Put them both on bad teams, and Lemieux wins in most cases. Gretzky wasn't about individual talent. He was all about exploiting the talent around him, and since hockey is a team game, he's the player I take despite some physical shortcomings vs. Orr and Lemieux.
 
Last edited:

Up the Irons

Registered User
Mar 9, 2008
7,681
389
Canada
as I type this, i am watching the 87 Canada Cup, game 2 of the final. virtually everytime 99 touches the puck he makes a scoring chance; he's is creating 4 or 5 chances a shift. Its ridiculous how dangerous he is. He is also surprizingly good at picking the puck possessor's pocket and stripping the puck of guys.

Anyone who wants to understand how special 99 was must watch this game, and forever silence the arguements. Besides 66 and 4, no one is even in his stratasphere.
 

Sens Rule

Registered User
Sep 22, 2005
21,251
73
Yes, that's true. I see what you're saying now.

To answer another poster about Gretzky's 85-86 season where he had 163 assists: In his autobiography, Gretzky said he secretly was trying to achieve 2 assists per game since 84 (if I remember correctly), and did it in 85-86. Even more amazing is he was somehow able to score over 50 goals the same season. Mind boggling really. Someone posted in the other thread that a prime Gretzky would be able to score 60 goals and 190 assists for 250 points on a line with Jari Kurri and Mario Lemieux. As far fetched as that sounds at first, it really isn't when you think about it. Gretzky scored 52 goals and 163 assists without Mario Lemieux afterall. Could Lemieux have given him an extra 8 goals and 27 assists? I would think so. Gretzky was the best ever at getting the most out of great players. Put Gretzky on a great team and put Mario Lemieux on a great team and Gretzky beats Lemieux in scoring 9 times out of 10. Put them both on bad teams, and Lemieux wins in most cases. Gretzky wasn't about individual talent. He was all about exploiting the talent around him, and since hockey is a team game, he's the player I take despite some physical shortcomings vs. Orr and Lemieux.

Gretzky scored 92 goals and 212 points on a BAD TEAM. With rookies and/or journeyman as linemates, before Coffey broke out. I think it is possible Gretzky outscores Mario on a bad team as well.
 

King Woodballs

Captain Awesome
Sep 25, 2007
39,362
7,374
Your Mind
992 career goals
2800+ career points
(next closest is nearly 1000 points behind him)

4 200+ point seasons

winning art ross trophies with assists alone....

it wasnt about physical skill it was about smarts
and that is what makes me think he would still own the NHL if he played today
 

JT Dutch*

Guest
Gretzky scored 92 goals and 212 points on a BAD TEAM. With rookies and/or journeyman as linemates, before Coffey broke out. I think it is possible Gretzky outscores Mario on a bad team as well.

... The 81-82 Oilers were certainly not a bad team. If you want to talk about the Oilers of 79-80 I'll grant you that, but the 80-81 team was alright and the 81-82 team was good.

Coffey had 89 points as a 20 year old in 81-82. It's safe to say that was his breakout season. Anderson, Messier, and Kurri were all 21 years old and producing well.

What beat the Oilers in the '82 playoffs was their lack of depth, and their over-reliance on their top five players, so you could certainly say they were not a GREAT team - but they were unquestionably good.
 

shazariahl

Registered User
Apr 7, 2009
2,030
59
... The 81-82 Oilers were certainly not a bad team. If you want to talk about the Oilers of 79-80 I'll grant you that, but the 80-81 team was alright and the 81-82 team was good.

Coffey had 89 points as a 20 year old in 81-82. It's safe to say that was his breakout season. Anderson, Messier, and Kurri were all 21 years old and producing well.

What beat the Oilers in the '82 playoffs was their lack of depth, and their over-reliance on their top five players, so you could certainly say they were not a GREAT team - but they were unquestionably good.

While I'm don't disagree with your opinion of the Oilers from that year, I find the scoring numbers strange, to say the least. Gretzky had over double the points of anyone else on the team. If you look at their numbers you have :

Gretzky 212 pts
Anderson 105
Coffey 89
Messier 88
Kurri 86
Lumley 74
Siltanen 63
Hagman 59

No one else even breaks 50 points. The only reason Lumley's points are that high is because he spent most the season on Gretzky's line instead of Kurri (that was Kurri's first season in the NHL and they didn't start him with Gretzky until later in the year). Gretzky had more GOALS than anyone had points except for Anderson, and obvioulsy more assists than anyone else on the team had points.

The Oilers were good in the regular season though, which is where I agree with your opinion. Despite a huge imbalance in scoring, they managed to finish first in the smythe division, and I believe 2nd overall. As you also said, over reliance on their top line and lack of playoff experience in Fuhr (who had a great regular season, but was terrible in the playoffs, particularly the final game where the Oilers blew a 5-0 lead, giving up 5 goals in the 3rd period and another in OT to lose the game) were the main causes of their ruin.

They are a hard team to judge because despite regular season success, they lost in the 1st round of the playoffs, and they had little to no depth. I don't know if I can call a team like that "good", no matter how they finished in the regular season. It really feels like they were carried by Gretzky, Anderson, and Fuhr all season, and then Fuhr fell apart in the post season, leaving them where they ended up - beaten in the first round.
 

CarlWinslow

@hiphopsicles
Jan 25, 2010
7,734
140
Winnipeg
I find it interesting that a thread that alludes to Gretzky's "physical" talents finds it difficult to field comments that disagree.

Pom Poms only? Sheesh.....

I noticed you mentioned between 1980-90....and not 91-99.

Why? Perhaps because his physical attributes allowed him to be +/- NEGATIVE six times, on his way to also hold the all-time record of being on the ice witnessing the most scores allowed AGAINST his team?

Now, before you continue to disparage these factual comments I make, please note that I hold Gretzky to be the top offensive player of all-time -- by a wide margin. And he was an absolute magician...including having the ability to erase all his imperfections from the minds of his fans!!!

Probably because after the Suter cheapshot, Gretzky wasn't the same player. Anything after that is post-prime Gretzky and although still great, he was certainly no longer what he had been.
 

McGuillicuddy

Registered User
Sep 6, 2005
1,296
198
Everything? Really???

Does your "everything" include essential things such as checking, corner work, sticking up for teammates (or for yourself), playing the "absolute best" defense one can play, etc...?

If not, perhaps "everything" isn't the best word to use in your description.

I think you're bordering on trolling by focusing on individual words out of context in the name of picking a fight.

Gretzky's "everything" obviously did not include those "essential" things you mention because that would be a waste of his time. Those things were not "essential" to Gretzky's game just like they aren't essential for a goalie's game. The sacrifice to his offensive game that would have been required for him to make a marginal contribution to mucking in the corners and gooning it up for his teammates wouldn't be worth it. His total contribution would be decreased by wasting time in these areas. Thus, doing these things would not be consistent with "doing everything to be the best he could".

So the original statement stands.
 

AHockeyGameBrokeOut*

Guest
Do you really need to ask this question? Chuck Norris wishes he could be like Wayne Gretzky.
 

tazzy19

Registered User
Mar 27, 2008
2,268
116
as I type this, i am watching the 87 Canada Cup, game 2 of the final. virtually everytime 99 touches the puck he makes a scoring chance; he's is creating 4 or 5 chances a shift. Its ridiculous how dangerous he is. He is also surprizingly good at picking the puck possessor's pocket and stripping the puck of guys.

Anyone who wants to understand how special 99 was must watch this game, and forever silence the arguements. Besides 66 and 4, no one is even in his stratasphere.

Exactly RustE. For all the people on this site who say that Gretzky couldn't handle the "elite", "high level" play of today's "better conditioned" athletes in the "New NHL", should just watch game 2 of the 1987 Canada Cup. The Russians were as fast and as well conditioned as any of today's players, and they were certainly more talented than most of the players in the NHL today. And Gretzky still skated circles around them. 5 assists in that game, including setting up Mario Lemieux for a hattrick on all 3 of his goals. Gretzky outscored Lemieux in that tournament, playing with and against the best players in the world.
 

Mr Atoz*

Guest
Gretzky has the most goals in NHL history. Yet if you took away every single goal he scored he'd still be the leading scorer in NHL history on his assists alone.

If you can't understand how good that is then I can't explain it any other way.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->