Igor Larionov on why there aren't more Datsyuks in the NHL

[Namejs]

I don't really see you saying anything that actually contradicts what I've said. Forward passes weren't around until the 30's so we're talking about basically 10 relevant years during which Latvia wasn't part of the Soviet Union. Like I said, essentially all of the relevant time period. It seems you're focused on making sure Latvia gets credit but I'm not talking about Russia vs. Latvia so that's your hang-up.

The 30s is when they started playing hockey. I keep mentioning that they were newcomers to the sport of hockey, because the notion that the Russians/Soviets brought, say, the east-west game to the sport shows a major lack of perspective. So I was hoping that providing some additional context would clear it up, but it doesn't look like it's working.

The only reason why I can give you details on the Latvian involvement in early Soviet hockey is that I'm... Latvian. It's got nothing to do with me trying to get credit. I wasn't there myself, you know. As I already said, the Czechs played a major role as well and if I was Czech, I'm sure I could tell you some more stories and factoids about it too.

Furthermore, hockey was brought to Latvia by Swedes and Brits and they had contacts with Canadians before that. I'm just telling you how modern hockey spread in Europe. It's got a much longer history in Europe than in Russia and all of their 'innovations' at that stage were, well, not really innovations at all.

Also, I honestly don't understand why you keep mentioning that Latvia was invaded by the Soviet Union. Did France become a part of the German culture when it was invaded in 1940? Frankly, it also shows a lack of general historical perspective and it's a bit insulting. The Latvian hockey traditions/culture were continuous throughout the 30s/40s. Just because there's a foreign army present doesn't suddenly make us a part of the invading countries' hockey culture. You seem to be fixated on the name of the political establishment the Latvians were playing for, but it has nothing to do with the way hockey spread in Europe and Russia, which is why I brought it up in the first place.

Tarasov did bring some new methods in coaching in the 60s/70s, that's true. Chernyshev, who was the head coach of the Soviet national team during that time (Tarasov was the assistant coach), was coached by, you guessed it, Latvians.

I'd say that the sheer amount of talent was the deciding factor in all of it. It's not the strategic approach to the game which made them so dominant.

 

[Paxon]

The 30s is when they started playing hockey. I keep mentioning that they were newcomers to the sport of hockey, because the notion that the Russians/Soviets brought, say, the east-west game to the sport shows a major lack of perspective. So I was hoping that providing some additional context would clear it up, but it doesn't look like it's working.

The only reason why I can give you details on the Latvian involvement in early Soviet hockey is that I'm... Latvian. It's got nothing to do with me trying to get credit. I wasn't there myself, you know. As I already said, the Czechs played a major role as well and if I was Czech, I'm sure I could tell you some more stories and factoids about it too.

Furthermore, hockey was brought to Latvia by Swedes and Brits and they had contacts with Canadians before that. I'm just telling you how modern hockey spread in Europe. It's got a much longer history in Europe than in Russia and all of their 'innovations' at that stage were, well, not really innovations at all.

Also, I honestly don't understand why you keep mentioning that Latvia was invaded by the Soviet Union. Did France become a part of the German culture when it was invaded in 1940? Frankly, it also shows a lack of general historical perspective and it's a bit insulting. The Latvian hockey traditions/culture were continuous throughout the 30s/40s. Just because there's a foreign army present doesn't suddenly make us a part of the invading countries' hockey culture. You seem to be fixated on the name of the political establishment the Latvians were playing for, but it has nothing to do with the way hockey spread in Europe and Russia, which is why I brought it up in the first place.

Tarasov did bring some new methods in coaching in the 60s/70s, that's true. Chernyshev, who was the head coach of the Soviet national team during that time (Tarasov was the assistant coach), was coached by, you guessed it, Latvians.

I'd say that the sheer amount of talent was the deciding factor in all of it. It's not the strategic approach to the game which made them so dominant.

I'm aware of when Russians started playing ice hockey, which I think is pretty obvious from my first comment on. I didn't say anything about Latvian culture or its distinctness from Russian culture, nor indeed anything about Russia specifically. The last thing I lack is historical perspective with World War 2 considering it's one of my biggest subjects of interest. Latvia was invaded, yes, then absorbed into the Soviet Union as a republic for 50 years. Did Latvians want to be part of the Soviet Union? No, not the majority, which is true of all of the other republics as well as all of the satellite governments in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc. That doesn't change anything. It was Soviet. It's not something to be argued. I'm not fixated on anything other than the actual subject, which is not cultural or national identity. The subject is the Soviet international team, the impact it had on hockey (particularly in North America), and, yes, the innovations it brought to its style of gameplay. Latvian hockey from the 40's onward was part of Soviet hockey. Anything beyond that is irrelevant to what I'm saying. Perhaps it's relevant to what you want to say, but then that means you want to talk about something different. I'm not concerned with national identity. The only reason this has anything to do with nations at all is because the team I'm talking about happens to be a national team.

I'd argue whether talent was any more of a factor than the managerial side (training, strategy, etc) and in either case you can't separate the two fully because talent is developed, in this case by a bureaucratic system which was under the dictation of the same people dictating the managerial decisions. All you have to do is watch what games are available to us to see that the Soviet team played a distinct brand of hockey even within the context of European hockey.

Edit: And I'm not trying to minimize or discredit European hockey outside of Russia or the Soviet Union. For one thing, obviously Russians didn't go from 0 to 60 in the matter of a couple decades without direct help from outside hockey minds, like you talk about, but that doesn't mean everything they did was borrowed any more than it'd mean everything was ultimately borrowed from Canadians. For another thing, after the rise of the Soviets on the international scene its not as if they were the only Europeans pushing the game. The Czechs and Swedes pop to mind pretty clearly. None of that changes the impact the Soivets specifically had on the game for a multitude of reasons, in a multitude of ways.

 

[StlSwedes]

I enjoyed reading the article and look forward to seeing the movie this weekend. Very interesting to hear him explain how life was like prison and the only freedom they had was their actions on the ice. Fascinating.

The simplicity of their prison life existence paved the way for their on ice genius.

 

[joshjull]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv3B-MLt8q8

That clip is a small sample size of the puck possession, passing, regrouping and flow those teams had.



I understand what Larinov is getting at and he's not entirely wrong that hockey at times stifles the skill payers. The teams he played on were magicians with the puck that included all 5 players on the ice in what they did. They didn't have the line structure we see. They had 5 man units that enable a dman to be as involved in the attack as any forward. And conversely a forward could be as involved in defending as a dman. It was a 5 man unit that was attacked and defended as a 5 man unit and the same 5 guys stayed together. Larionov for example played with Krutov and Makorov as his fellow forwards and Fetisov/Kasatonov as the dmen for almost 10 years I believe. Ten years together in that crazy training structure with the same 4 other players. But thats part of what led to their success. The conditions they were kept under; for 11 months housed together in barracks and practicing for 4hours a day. It allowed a level of chemistry to develop on those teams that was eerie.


Ironically enough we have a player coming up in Reinhart who could be viewed as a player who "thinks 4 moves ahead" to steal Igor's comment. Some have favorably compared Reinhart to Larionov.

 

[Namejs]

I'm aware of when Russians started playing ice hockey, which I think is pretty obvious from my first comment on. I didn't say anything about Latvian culture or its distinctness from Russian culture, nor indeed anything about Russia specifically. The last thing I lack is historical perspective with World War 2 considering it's one of my biggest subjects of interest. Latvia was invaded, yes, then absorbed into the Soviet Union as a republic for 50 years. Did Latvians want to be part of the Soviet Union? No, not the majority, which is true of all of the other republics as well as all of the satellite governments in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc. That doesn't change anything. It was Soviet. It's not something to be argued. I'm not fixated on anything other than the actual subject, which is not cultural or national identity. The subject is the Soviet international team, the impact it had on hockey (particularly in North America), and, yes, the innovations it brought to its style of gameplay. Latvian hockey from the 40's onward was part of Soviet hockey. Anything beyond that is irrelevant to what I'm saying. Perhaps it's relevant to what you want to say, but then that means you want to talk about something different. I'm not concerned with national identity. The only reason this has anything to do with nations at all is because the team I'm talking about happens to be a national team.

I'd argue whether talent was any more of a factor than the managerial side (training, strategy, etc) and in either case you can't separate the two fully because talent is developed, in this case by a bureaucratic system which was under the dictation of the same people dictating the managerial decisions. All you have to do is watch what games are available to us to see that the Soviet team played a distinct brand of hockey even within the context of European hockey.

Edit: And I'm not trying to minimize or discredit European hockey outside of Russia or the Soviet Union. For one thing, obviously Russians didn't go from 0 to 60 in the matter of a couple decades without direct help from outside hockey minds, like you talk about, but that doesn't mean everything they did was borrowed any more than it'd mean everything was ultimately borrowed from Canadians. For another thing, after the rise of the Soviets on the international scene its not as if they were the only Europeans pushing the game. The Czechs and Swedes pop to mind pretty clearly. None of that changes the impact the Soivets specifically had on the game for a multitude of reasons, in a multitude of ways.

Sorry, I completely forgot about this thread.

I have no idea why you keep talking about Latvian culture or Latvian identity and I have no clue what does any of it have to do with anything I've said.

I was talking about the history of hockey and the hockey traditions in Latvia/Europe. I keep bringing up Latvia because that's the chapter of European hockey history that I know best AND because Latvians were among the hockey pioneers in the Soviet Union. Once again, there were no Soviet or Russian hockey innovations in the 40s or 50s. None. I think I've repeated that 3 or 4 times now. And it has nothing to do with Latvia being or not being a part of the Soviet Union.

The Latvian hockey players coaching the Soviets was not something unique and it wasn't the reason why they became so good. The Soviets are essentially a part of the European school of hockey and that is the only reason why I keep stressing the fact that Europeans were the ones who brought hockey to Russia. There was no unique Latvian school of hockey in the 30s or 40s. It is all a part of the European hockey paradigm, which is deeply rooted in bandy and has nothing to do with the type of hockey being played in Canada at the time.

Everyone in Europe historically plays hockey on a bigger ice surface, which is why the style of hockey being played in Europe AND Russia still is somewhat different when compared to North American hockey.

Saying that everything was ultimately borrowed from Canadians is laughable and has no basis in reality. The two different branches or schools of hockey appeared when Canadian and European hockey diverged in the 19th century.

The only thing the Soviets did is that they mastered the sport (or the European style of hockey to be more precise) using the advantages of their socialist sports system and their political ideology.

 

[Paxon]

I have no idea why you keep talking about Latvian culture or Latvian identity and I have no clue what does any of it have to do with anything I've said.

You brought it up in the comment I was responding to:

Also, I honestly don't understand why you keep mentioning that Latvia was invaded by the Soviet Union. Did France become a part of the German culture when it was invaded in 1940? Frankly, it also shows a lack of general historical perspective and it's a bit insulting.

I don't know what's confusing about what I said in response or why I said it. I feel like I already addressed the rest of your post adequately so I'm not going to rehash this convo.