How would you define an International "Best on Best" tournament?

[tommygunn]

Also, knowing how lazy the NA media always was with using the correct terms, I'm 99.9 % sure that they would have called them that (or at least 'the Soviets') most of the time, even if such hypothetical team had been officially called 'European All-Stars'... or 'Eastern bloc All-Stars'

It seems like a few of our fellow posters on here are 'lazy' as well..

 

[McGuillicuddy]

About the 1976 and 1991 Canada Cups...

IMO those certainly qualify as Best on best tournaments, but yeah, when someone tries to use them as a definitive proof of Canada's superiority over USSR, it becomes a bit laughable. Yes, it would have required a Herculean effort from the Soviets to win the tournament - or even beat Czechoslovakia for the 2nd place - in 1976, but as anyone should realize, a Soviet national team without Mikhailov, Petrov*, Shadrin, Yakushev (basically the top & 2nd line at the time) and Tsygankov wasn't even nearly the best possible Team USSR.

If history recognizes 1996 as an unblemished victory by the USA over Canada (and it does) then we must also recognize 1976 as a fair victory by Canada over the USSR (and the Czechs).

Missing Lemieux, Bourque, Roy, MacInnis, Francis- players in or near their prime who are widely recognized among the greatest of all-time at their positions, is definitely as great a detriment to Canada as missing the Soviet players you mentioned above. It is only because of Canada's great depth that despite missing these hall-of-famers that we fielded a team that still looked like it was full of top talent (albeit with some very dubious choices in there - Lyle Odelein I'm looking at you)!

I've grown up enough to not make excuses for Canada in 1996 (see post 171) and I give full value to the USA for that victory. I expect no less from Soviet/Russian fans for 1976. Besides, nobody was going to stop Bobby Orr.

 

[VMBM]

Regardless you have clearly admitted that Soviet / Russian hockey lacked depth all along. From 1972 - 2010 the situation has not changed.

In 1972 Team Canada as defined by Alan Eagelson, won despite missing great players like Bobby Orr, Bobby Hull, J.C. Tremblay, Gerry Cheevers.

Well, in case you haven't noticed, many Canadian hockey fans frequently use that as an excuse, even though TC won!

The Soviets were missing Anatoly Firsov and even more importantly, Anatoly Tarasov as a coach.

And of course you will never admit that Clarke injuring Valeri Kharlamov, i.e. USSR's best player (skater), had any effect on the outcome. Just imagine, say, Krutov breaking Gretzky's ankle in g2 of the 1987 Canada Cup finals. If and when, as a result, the Soviets had won, there is absolutely no way Canadian fans would ever accept that as a win for USSR, simply NO WAY.

Your 1976 examples focuses on the stars but the reality is that the Soviet bottom six were simply not good enough. Same point could be made about 1991 while in 2010 you just eliminate the excuse of the top players not being available.The Russian bottom six simply could not compete while Canada had numerous players starting with Steve Stamkos who could have played with the same result.

So at least 38 years the Soviet / Russian hockey lacked depth. you have provided ample evidence. A fact that most Canadian hockey fans figured out long ago. Sure the Soviet / Russian teams won a few games and an odd "best on best" tournament - even a blind squirrel finds food but they were never able to overcome the lack of depth issue. Still waiting to see you or anyone else come up with proposals to solve the lack of depth problem in Russian hockey. Nearly 40 years should be enough time to take a few steps in the right direction.

It's pretty frustrating to having to deal with your ramblings about 1972 and 1976 and 1980 when I think I've been pretty clear with my opinion that other than 1978/79 & 1981-83 (when Soviet hockey was at least on the top was at its strongest) CANADIAN HOCKEY RULED SUPREME. There it is once again. It's just that 1978-83 IMO Canada could not assemble a squad that could beat Team USSR. This I base on quite a few games from that period I've recently watched plus the results; i.e. results vs. their main rivals in Europe, as well as results vs. Canada's best (in '79 and '81) and various other Team Canadas from that period, which only support - if anything - that view.

In the Challenge Cup, the Soviets were missing Fetisov and Maltsev already before the series. In the 1st game, they lost Kharlamov and in the 2nd Vladimir Golikov who had scored 2 key goals in the series. Yet they totally dominated NHL All-Stars (i.e. Canada's best players) and won 6-0; this despite having to juggle their lines (for example, Irek Gimaev, who was really a defenseman, playing as forward). If that didn't show any depth & adaptability, well, shame on NHL All-Stars then...

But I guess it's just downright impossible for you to understand a difference between various Soviet teams and especially between Soviet and Russian hockey, and realize/acknowledge that the Soviet national team wasn't just some team full of robots that had the same weaknesses year in year out and never adapted & improved at anything...

 

[VMBM]

I've grown up enough to not make excuses for Canada in 1996 (see post 171) and I give full value to the USA for that victory. I expect no less from Soviet/Russian fans for 1976. Besides, nobody was going to stop Bobby Orr.

Well, maybe the USSR coach could have sent Alexandrov to "give a little tap on his sore knee"... maybe that would have stopped him

I see this is getting nowhere [good]. That's it from me.

 

[McGuillicuddy]

It's pretty frustrating to having to deal with your ramblings about 1972 and 1976 and 1980 when I think I've been pretty clear with my opinion that other than 1978/79 & 1981-83 (when Soviet hockey was at least on the top was at its strongest) CANADIAN HOCKEY RULED SUPREME. There it is once again. It's just that 1978-83 IMO Canada could not assemble a squad that could beat Team USSR. This I base on quite a few games from that period I've recently watched plus the results; i.e. results vs. their main rivals in Europe, as well as results vs. Canada's best (in '79 and '81) and various other Team Canadas from that period, which only support - if anything - that view.

I think that's fair and I probably wouldn't disagree with you - there is certainly very little evidence to contradict you. The Soviets were at their peak and Canada was somewhat between generations (Lafleur et al. were winding down, and Gretzky/Lemieux were not yet in their primes). I think my problem was with assertions from people like YMB29 who said that overall in best-on-best Canada and the Soviets/Russia are essentially equal. That's just flat out wrong.

 

[digger18]

I don't really see how any international tournament could be considered a best on best in the current format.

Canada could ice 5 teams that would be more competative than the likes of Germany, Latvia, Norway, Belarus etc.....In reality the best players available are never really in those tournaments.

Follow the bobsledding route and allow the stornger countries to ice more than one team.

 

[Anderson9]

Well, in case you haven't noticed, many Canadian hockey fans frequently use that as an excuse, even though TC won!

The Soviets were missing Anatoly Firsov and even more importantly, Anatoly Tarasov as a coach.


And of course you will never admit that Clarke injuring Valeri Kharlamov, i.e. USSR's best player (skater), had any effect on the outcome. Just imagine, say, Krutov breaking Gretzky's ankle in g2 of the 1987 Canada Cup finals. If and when, as a result, the Soviets had won, there is absolutely no way Canadian fans would ever accept that as a win for USSR, simply NO WAY.

In the Challenge Cup, the Soviets were missing Fetisov and Maltsev already before the series. In the 1st game, they lost Kharlamov and in the 2nd Vladimir Golikov who had scored 2 key goals in the series. Yet they totally dominated NHL All-Stars (i.e. Canada's best players) and won 6-0; this despite having to juggle their lines (for example, Irek Gimaev, who was really a defenseman, playing as forward). If that didn't show any depth & adaptability, well, shame on NHL All-Stars then...

Anatoly Firsov the top player in 1972??? What nonsense. He was already on the way out. Earlier at the Olympics he played center on a line with Vikulov and Kharlamov, substantially slowing down the pace. With his hockey sense still there, he however looked too slow, being the least productive player on his line, points-wise. In fact the whole idea of putting that line together belonged to Tarasov who wanted to prolong Firsov's heyday. Maltsev by then was a superior attacker, btw the 1972 player of the year! And what gave you the idea that USSR would have done better if coached by Tarasov in place of Bobrov?
As for Gimaev, he was was a versatile player, a sort of power forward who initially played attack in a second-division team, and was transferred to CSKA where he was occasionally placed on defense and alternately back on offense whenever an liability appeared. No way he was a makeshift choice.

 

[YMB29]

I'd like to summarize my response as follows:

"Wait, what??"
....

I think Zine explained well what I meant.

Now you mention that if you look at it in terms to total games played, with the implication that all games are being treated as equal value, then Canada has only a 1 game edge. If you're going to boil things down to individual games then you can't then turn around and say that the 81 Canada Cup was a blowout! Again, if we're talking about individual games, Canada and USSR played each other twice; a round robin game that Canada won 7-3, and a final game that USSR won 8-1. Both of those games were blowouts, and so if we apply your own logic as set out above, then the 81 Canada Cup can be considered pretty much a draw since all games are considered equal value.

In terms of games it is a draw, but not in terms of tournament results.
Canada has one more game and tournament/series win due to CC87, but like I said that win, considering how it was achieved, does not indicate that Canada was better.

I understand the Soviets left their top line at home in 1976

Not just their top line...

but for the sake of argument if we are going to get into "ifs and buts" then Canada should get a break for not having Lemieux in 1996 (a far better player than any Soviet missing in action). Throw in Kariya, MacInnis, Bourque, Roy and the injured Francis and that's a scary six men on the ice we missed in 1996. Kariya missed all of the '98 Olympics and Sakic missed the important games. But you know what? I refuse to do that. I give full credit to EVERY country from each tournament for winning.

Yes every team has players missing in tournaments, not only Canada. The question is how many and how much their absence affects the team. The 76 and 91 Soviet teams clearly did not have a chance to win with their rosters.

1976: Can 3-1. Orr's only time to play the Russians, and he came as advertised

Again Canada was not facing many of the best Soviet players. If you count that then why not count some WC games?

1996: 5-3 Canadian victory in round robin, I never thought the game was in doubt

What game did you watch?
Two Russian goals were disallowed, one after a penalty was confirmed upon video review...
But I was talking about Canada vs. USSR, not Russia.

2004: 3-1 round robin victory for Canada. They had control practically the whole game

Again, this is similar to USSR in 76 and 91; the Russian roster was weak.

Nowhere am I contradicting myself. You're confusing yourself... because you're erroneously calling the NHL All-Stars Team Canada, when the truth is they are two very separate teams.

You yourself are very confused...
I did not call it team Canada, but the name does not matter; you can't ignore that it was Canadian vs. Soviet hockey.

I've grown up enough to not make excuses for Canada in 1996 (see post 171) and I give full value to the USA for that victory. I expect no less from Soviet/Russian fans for 1976.

Then you should do the same for the Soviet wins in some of the WCs post 77...
Yes Canada deserves credit for winning in 76, but when comparing "best on best" results of Soviet vs. Canadian hockey that win does not say much...

I think my problem was with assertions from people like YMB29 who said that overall in best-on-best Canada and the Soviets/Russia are essentially equal. That's just flat out wrong.

I said the USSR only, not Russia.
And I also think that the Soviet team would have proved to be better if a significant amount of games would have been played in USSR/Europe or at least with neutral officiating.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Interesting Points

Anatoly Firsov the top player in 1972??? What nonsense. He was already on the way out. Earlier at the Olympics he played center on a line with Vikulov and Kharlamov, substantially slowing down the pace. With his hockey sense still there, he however looked too slow, being the least productive player on his line, points-wise. In fact the whole idea of putting that line together belonged to Tarasov who wanted to prolong Firsov's heyday. Maltsev by then was a superior attacker, btw the 1972 player of the year! And what gave you the idea that USSR would have done better if coached by Tarasov in place of Bobrov?
As for Gimaev, he was was a versatile player, a sort of power forward who initially played attack in a second-division team, and was transferred to CSKA where he was occasionally placed on defense and alternately back on offense whenever an liability appeared. No way he was a makeshift choice.

You raise two interesting points. I remember Gimaev, hybrid defence man / forward. During the 1950's and 1960's such players had a special value for an NHL team since they would take one roster spot but could play two or three positions providing greater roster flexibility. How far did the Soviets go trying to develop such players?

Your point about Firsov's drop in performance is interesting from the standpoint of career expectancy. The Soviet National Team seemed to favour players under thirty as opposed to the NHL of the 1960's early seventies where players in their thirties were very common especially the championship Maple Leafs, the Red Wings and to a degree the Canadiens.Could you expand on the Soviet view of players once they reached thirty?

 

[tommygunn]

You contradict yourself.
First you say that Canada did not have all of its best because some played in the WHA, which implies that Canada was weaker and therefore would have done better with those players.

Nowhere am I contradicting myself. You're confusing yourself... because you're erroneously calling the NHL All-Stars Team Canada, when the truth is they are two very separate teams.

You yourself are very confused...
I did not call it team Canada...

Really?

 

[VMBM]

Anatoly Firsov the top player in 1972??? What nonsense. He was already on the way out. Earlier at the Olympics he played center on a line with Vikulov and Kharlamov, substantially slowing down the pace. With his hockey sense still there, he however looked too slow, being the least productive player on his line, points-wise. In fact the whole idea of putting that line together belonged to Tarasov who wanted to prolong Firsov's heyday. Maltsev by then was a superior attacker, btw the 1972 player of the year! And what gave you the idea that USSR would have done better if coached by Tarasov in place of Bobrov?
As for Gimaev, he was was a versatile player, a sort of power forward who initially played attack in a second-division team, and was transferred to CSKA where he was occasionally placed on defense and alternately back on offense whenever an liability appeared. No way he was a makeshift choice.

Oh boy, have a cookie, will you?

Did I say he was THE top player? Obviously Kharlamov (at least) had surpassed him at that point. However, if you're going to tell me he wouldn''t have been an asset to the team (yes, still), I say it is you who is talking nonsense. Just under 1.5 years previously [at the 1971 World Championships] he had been the top scorer and was chosen as the best forward; did he really get so bad so quickly? But I guess since I don't have any footage from the 1972 Olympics, I just have to trust your word that he was 'awful' Anyway, I'm 100 % sure he would have performed better than Vikulov in the Summit series. And no matter how good Maltsev (who BTW benefited immensely from playing on the same line with Firsov in the early '70s) was at this point, his performance in the Summit series wasn't anything special; could not even score a single goal, even though showed some good playmaking at times. And what was your point anyway? Having Firsov on the team doesn't mean that Alexander Maltsev does not get to play. Of course, there is always a possibility that - much like Starshinov in the lone game he played or F. Mahovlich for Team Canada - Firsov would have looked like 'man out of time', so to speak. We will never know.

What gave me the idea that USSR would have done better if coached by Tarasov? Er, just common sense, you know... are you gonna tell me that Bobrov as a coach was anything near of Tarasov's caliber, or that the players (many of them 'discovered' by Tarasov) preferred Bobrov? I'm sure some of them appreciated the new-found 'freedom' under Bobrov, but something just tells me that Tarasov would have gotten more out of that team, especially when things started to go rough.

Irek Gimayev...

It's true that on the Soviet national team, he seemed to play at least as much offense as defense, though interestingly he is listed only as defenseman on Chidlovski's 'Hockey CCCP International' site (http://www.chidlovski.net/1954/54_player_info.asp?p_id=g003). However, him being placed on a line together with Makarov and Tyumenev does not sound very ideal situation to me, as those players very likely had never REALLY played together before; I think Gimayev was playing his 1st game for the national team and Tyumenev his 2nd (the 1st was the g2 of the series on the top line with Mikhailov and Petrov). And alas, the Gimayev-Makarov-Tyumenev line was undoubtedly 'the worst' Soviet line of the game; they still might have outperformed their NHL counterparts, though...

 

[Anderson9]

Oh boy, have a cookie, will you?

Did I say he was THE top player? Obviously Kharlamov (at least) had surpassed him at that point. However, if you're going to tell me he wouldn''t have been an asset to the team (yes, still), I say it is you who is talking nonsense. Just under 1.5 years previously [at the 1971 World Championships] he had been the top scorer and was chosen as the best forward; did he really get so bad so quickly? But I guess since I don't have any footage from the 1972 Olympics, I just have to trust your word that he was 'awful' Anyway, I'm 100 % sure he would have performed better than Vikulov in the Summit series. And no matter how good Maltsev (who BTW benefited immensely from playing on the same line with Firsov in the early '70s) was at this point, his performance in the Summit series wasn't anything special; could not even score a single goal, even though showed some good playmaking at times. And what was your point anyway? Having Firsov on the team doesn't mean that Alexander Maltsev does not get to play. Of course, there is always a possibility that - much like Starshinov in the lone game he played or F. Mahovlich for Team Canada - Firsov would have looked like 'man out of time', so to speak. We will never know.

What gave me the idea that USSR would have done better if coached by Tarasov? Er, just common sense, you know... are you gonna tell me that Bobrov as a coach was anything near of Tarasov's caliber, or that the players (many of them 'discovered' by Tarasov) preferred Bobrov? I'm sure some of them appreciated the new-found 'freedom' under Bobrov, but something just tells me that Tarasov would have gotten more out of that team, especially when things started to go rough.

Irek Gimayev...

It's true that on the Soviet national team, he seemed to play at least as much offense as defense, though interestingly he is listed only as defenseman on Chidlovski's 'Hockey CCCP International' site (http://www.chidlovski.net/1954/54_player_info.asp?p_id=g003). However, him being placed on a line together with Makarov and Tyumenev does not sound very ideal situation to me, as those players very likely had never REALLY played together before; I think Gimayev was playing his 1st game for the national team and Tyumenev his 2nd (the 1st was the g2 of the series on the top line with Mikhailov and Petrov). And alas, the Gimayev-Makarov-Tyumenev line was undoubtedly 'the worst' Soviet line of the game; they still might have outperformed their NHL counterparts, though...

Bobrov and Tarasov were sworn enemies and absolute opposites and its much too dubious whether Tarasov was a superior coach. He placed emphasis on athleticism, while Bobrov encouraged freedom to improvise. IMO they're just about tied as coaches.
On to Maltsev in the SS-72. For a prolific scorer to be held without a goal looks certainly like a failure. But my take is, he was simply out luck cause he led his steam in shots on goal, but sometimes **** happens...
As for Gimayev, Makarov and Tymenev. The line would have been a total bust if it hadnt been for Makarov who was having a breakout season and was undoubtedly the top Soviet forward. Any guy would excel playing on a line with a Supernova. Or maybe these three were simply on a glory night. Just like Myshkin in goal

 

[Anderson9]

You raise two interesting points. I remember Gimaev, hybrid defence man / forward. During the 1950's and 1960's such players had a special value for an NHL team since they would take one roster spot but could play two or three positions providing greater roster flexibility. How far did the Soviets go trying to develop such players?

Your point about Firsov's drop in performance is interesting from the standpoint of career expectancy. The Soviet National Team seemed to favour players under thirty as opposed to the NHL of the 1960's early seventies where players in their thirties were very common especially the championship Maple Leafs, the Red Wings and to a degree the Canadiens.Could you expand on the Soviet view of players once they reached thirty?

Here's one addition to my earlier post about Firsov's last year on the NT. Tarasov had thought up a strategy he referred to as 1-2-2 with one anchor (Ragulin), two midfielders (Firsov and Tsygankov) and two forwards (Vikulov and Kharlamov). I don't know how his brainchild worked, but at the time the whole concept looked downright hilarious. There in fact were no "midfielders"! The waning playmaker Firsov played deeper than usual,and that's all there was to it.
Players at around 30 like Firsov (as well as earlier Srarshinov and mayorov) were forced to retire. Boris Mikhailov who didn't quit until 36 was a lucky exception. Arguably the top center of the Soviet league Alexander Almetov quit at 27!
Yet it would be a stretch to say those retirements were due to coercion alone. Their production dropped dramatically in their last career seasons which is proof to the fact the retirees were naturally exhausted. The soviet system of conditioning took its heavy toll on both their health and/or later social adaptability.
On to defensive/offensive hybrids. Tarasov was hysterically opposed to that player type, targeting his fury at the one and only coach who used them, Nikolai Epstein. Whether those were merely personal issues, or anti-Semitic is beyond me.
Tikhonov, since his coaching days in Riga, did use multifunctional players, the examples being not only Gimaev but also Vladimir Konstantinov who played a fourth-line center at WC-1986 and occasionally Pervukhin.

 

[VMBM]

As for Gimayev, Makarov and Tymenev. The line would have a total bust if it hadnt been for Makarov who was having a breakout season and was undoubtedly the top Soviet forward. Any guy would excel playing on a line with a Supernova. Or maybe these three were simply on a glory night. Just like Myshkin in goal

The best Soviet skater in '79 IMO would have been a race between Makarov, Mikhailov and Balderis... and throw ol' Vladimir Petrov there too, who was having his last great season. The Golikov bros from Dynamo Moscow were playing brilliantly around this time too.

About the different Soviet line variations in the series...
Interestingly, the top line (Mikhailov-Petrov-) with replacement left wingers Tyumenev (G2) and Alexander Golikov (G3) played much better than with Valeri Kharlamov (1st game) - it was obvious that Kharlamov was not the top player on the team anymore; only occasional flashes of the old brilliance. He still played well in the 1979 WC.

The overall performance of the 2nd line of Kapustin-Zhluktov-Balderis was slightly disappointing; a good game 3 from all of them, though.

The initial 3rd line of Golikov-Golikov-Makarov was brilliant in both game 1 and game 2; too bad Vladimir got injured. Anyway, as mentioned, Alexander played very well together with Mikhailov and Petrov in the 3rd game and it was he who set up Mikhailov for the 1st Soviet goal that started the 'hammering'.

The Gorky Torpedo line of Skvortsov-Kovin-Varnakov played consistently well, and were even putting on somewhat of a show in the last game; maybe their shining moment in the national team?

Myshkin did what he had to do, but actually he did not have to face too many good shots from NHL (this was also acknowledged by Myshkin himself); a lot of them were from bad angles etc. In fact, USSR not only scored the goals in the game but I think had the best scoring chances as well.

I wish it had been a more well-thought-out series (8 games like in '72 and Team Canada officially?), so there would not be so much - ahem - excuses and doubts. I feel pretty confident that this time around, USSR would have triumphed.

 

[McGuillicuddy]

However, him being placed on a line together with Makarov and Tyumenev does not sound very ideal situation to me, as those players very likely had never REALLY played together before; I think Gimayev was playing his 1st game for the national team and Tyumenev his 2nd (the 1st was the g2 of the series on the top line with Mikhailov and Petrov).

This sort of thing applies to every player on every Team Canada the USSR ever played against. So, YMB29, don't give me your crap about everything always being in Team Canada's favour when this huge factor always favoured the USSR.

 

[YMB29]

This sort of thing applies to every player on every Team Canada the USSR ever played against. So, YMB29, don't give me your crap about everything always being in Team Canada's favour when this huge factor always favoured the USSR.

Yes of course...

You contradict yourself.
First you say that Canada did not have all of its best because some played in the WHA, which implies that Canada was weaker and therefore would have done better with those players.

Nowhere am I contradicting myself. You're confusing yourself... because you're erroneously calling the NHL All-Stars Team Canada, when the truth is they are two very separate teams.

You yourself are very confused...
I did not call it team Canada...

Really?

Canada as in Canadians, not team Canada...
Nice try though.

 

[tommygunn]

Canada as in Canadians, not team Canada...

Pathetic..

 

[Big Phil]

Not just their top line...

And Canada in 1996 had more than a top line gone too. Find a player from Russia in 1976 that was as good as Lemieux in 1996. You won't. Canada had three star forwards, two star defensemen and a recent Cup winning goalie not playing not to mention one of their forwards won the Hart Trophy in 1996. All that I still will not make an excuse. Nor should you, the Soviets still had a very good team with arguably the best goalie in the world

Yes every team has players missing in tournaments, not only Canada. The question is how many and how much their absence affects the team. The 76 and 91 Soviet teams clearly did not have a chance to win with their rosters.

I'll throw out some names. Lemieux, Bourque, Roy, Neely, Yzerman, Recchi, Gilmour, Nieuwendyk. These guys either turned down the 1991 Canada Cup, were hurt, or were cut/never picked. 1991 also featured the best player in the world (Gretzky) being hurt in the final. Hull also was invited for Team Canada but went to USA instead. That's a lot of talent not there and they still did not lose a game.

Again Canada was not facing many of the best Soviet players. If you count that then why not count some WC games?

Because there has never been a Canadian team at the Worlds that was better than a Russian team at any given Canada Cup

What game did you watch?
Two Russian goals were disallowed, one after a penalty was confirmed upon video review...
But I was talking about Canada vs. USSR, not Russia

Russian goals were disallowed because of too many men on the ice and goalie interference. Fair enough. It was 3-1 Canada after the first period, the Russians did tie it but eventually it ended up 5-3. Call me a crazy hockey fan who has seen a lot of games, but the feel I had in that game is that Canada was not going to let that game slip away. To be fair, I felt the opposite two nights later when Canada played a close game vs. USA

Again, this is similar to USSR in 76 and 91; the Russian roster was weak.

The Russians perhaps were going through a little bit of a transition at that time but how do you explain 2010 then? On these boards there was ferocious debates about the offense the Russians would provide. What excuse do you have for Canada embarrassing them 7-3 in a game where they actually let up after it was 6-1? Russia had ALL of their best players, you know that.

 

[YMB29]

And Canada in 1996 had more than a top line gone too. Find a player from Russia in 1976 that was as good as Lemieux in 1996. You won't. Canada had three star forwards, two star defensemen and a recent Cup winning goalie not playing not to mention one of their forwards won the Hart Trophy in 1996. All that I still will not make an excuse. Nor should you, the Soviets still had a very good team with arguably the best goalie in the world.

Well it is your opinion that Lemieux was better than any Soviet player in 76...
Yes the 76 Soviet team was good but not at its best like Canada and Czechoslovakia. The team was called experimental and Tikhonov said he realistically expected third place...

I'll throw out some names. Lemieux, Bourque, Roy, Neely, Yzerman, Recchi, Gilmour, Nieuwendyk. These guys either turned down the 1991 Canada Cup, were hurt, or were cut/never picked. 1991 also featured the best player in the world (Gretzky) being hurt in the final. Hull also was invited for Team Canada but went to USA instead. That's a lot of talent not there and they still did not lose a game.

Canada has more players to chоose from than other countries so you can't just name star players and assume they were more important to the team than the players who played instead of them.
In 1991 the Soviets were missing basically their top 3 lines and a few top defensemen, which can't compare to Canada's situation.

Because there has never been a Canadian team at the Worlds that was better than a Russian team at any given Canada Cup

And you are sure about that?
Like I said, the 82 and 89 Canadian teams were very good, and they were probably better than the 91 Soviet team.

Russian goals were disallowed because of too many men on the ice and goalie interference. Fair enough. It was 3-1 Canada after the first period, the Russians did tie it but eventually it ended up 5-3.

One goal was disallowed because the net was supposedly off the pegs, but it was not. I can let that go, but not the second one. There were too many men on the ice as the second goal was scored, but you can't go to video review to call a penalty and you can't disallow a goal because you find out that a penalty was supposed to be called before it... This was just ridiculous and clearly an example of bias in favor of Canada. Or you think there was nothing wrong?

The Russians perhaps were going through a little bit of a transition at that time but how do you explain 2010 then? On these boards there was ferocious debates about the offense the Russians would provide. What excuse do you have for Canada embarrassing them 7-3 in a game where they actually let up after it was 6-1? Russia had ALL of their best players, you know that.

Where do you see me making excuses for that? Poor team play and defensive breakdowns are common for Russian teams now. The same thing happened in the last two Olympics. So nothing really surprising other than that they again showed that they failed to learn...

 

[Anderson9]

x

Well it is your opinion that Lemieux was better than any Soviet player in 76...
Yes the 76 Soviet team was good but not at its best like Canada and Czechoslovakia. The team was called experimental and Tikhonov said he realistically expected third place...



Canada has more players to chоose from than other countries so you can't just name star players and assume they were more important to the team than the players who played instead of them.
In 1991 the Soviets were missing basically their top 3 lines and a few top defensemen, which can't compare to Canada's situation.



And you are sure about that?
Like I said, the 82 and 89 Canadian teams were very good, and they were probably better than the 91 Soviet team.


One goal was disallowed because the net was supposedly off the pegs, but it was not. I can let that go, but not the second one. There were too many men on the ice as the second goal was scored, but you can't go to video review to call a penalty and you can't disallow a goal because you find out that a penalty was supposed to be called before it... This was just ridiculous and clearly an example of bias in favor of Canada. Or you think lthere was nothing wrong?

I remeber how Russian TV replayed those two goals over and over on the next day and came to a unanimous conclusion that both were not to be counted. Soviet veterans Anissin and Vasilyev both agreed with Gregson's decision. Every newspaper said yes, the ref was right. Only a couple of tabloids screamed bloody murde about cheating Canadians, but most fans admitted Russia had only themselves to blame and Canada had won fair and square.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Coming Full Circle

Well it is your opinion that Lemieux was better than any Soviet player in 76...
Yes the 76 Soviet team was good but not at its best like Canada and Czechoslovakia. The team was called experimental and Tikhonov said he realistically expected third place...



Canada has more players to chоose from than other countries so you can't just name star players and assume they were more important to the team than the players who played instead of them.
In 1991 the Soviets were missing basically their top 3 lines and a few top defensemen, which can't compare to Canada's situation.



And you are sure about that?
Like I said, the 82 and 89 Canadian teams were very good, and they were probably better than the 91 Soviet team.



One goal was disallowed because the net was supposedly off the pegs, but it was not. I can let that go, but not the second one. There were too many men on the ice as the second goal was scored, but you can't go to video review to call a penalty and you can't disallow a goal because you find out that a penalty was supposed to be called before it... This was just ridiculous and clearly an example of bias in favor of Canada. Or you think there was nothing wrong?



Where do you see me making excuses for that? Poor team play and defensive breakdowns are common for Russian teams now. The same thing happened in the last two Olympics. So nothing really surprising other than that they again showed that they failed to learn...

Anderson9 just posted shooting down your bias claim.

Recent HF article highlights the various points others have been making about the weaknesses inherent in Soviet / Russian hockey:

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/articles/12022/russia_still_not_producing_goaltenders/

Goaltending, poor team and defensive play, poor coaching, poor development strategy. Add that Russia has gone from exporting hockey knowledge - Tretiak's goaltending school's in NA to importing the same knowledge - the main focus of the article is a Finnish goaltending coach.

As for having more players to choose from that is true because Canada made an effort to develop players at the grassroots level. The Soviet Union / Russia had and still has a population that is much greater than Canada's population yet fewer hockey players than the province of like Ontario or Quebec. The result of bad choices generations ago when the decision was made to focus on short term objectives.

 

[Zine]

Anderson9 just posted shooting down your bias claim.

Recent HF article highlights the various points others have been making about the weaknesses inherent in Soviet / Russian hockey:

Russian hockey, yes. Soviet hockey, no. They are NOT one and the same.

Even someone like Kulagin would roll over in his grave if he read this article.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Thread closed because of incessant bickering and name-calling.

Go outside and take a walk - it's spring.