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

[CatsforReinhart]

Try not to see it as a geopolitical statement. I'm sure he'd credit ovechkins style in some measure to Canadian players who came before him. Were all in this big hockey stew pot together. In a similar sense, neuvirth owes his style to French Canada, but we all share it now.

That is where you are wrong....maybe. Players take on a style usually they try to emulate a certain player or players. If Crosby says I grew up watching Lemieux and Gretzky and tried to emulate them then Soviet hockey has NOTHING to do with it.

What Rob is saying is about the game it is completely different then what I am talking about. Larianov makes a statement but Paxon takes it as an opinion. How Crosby styles his play is something that you need to ask Crosby, you need to ask McDavid, you need to ask Kane and Toews.

How the game is played on the ice is not what Larianov is talking about with the quote I posted. He is saying without Soviet hockey Crosby is not the player he is today.

There is two things here, the style of the game and the style of the player. When Larianov brings up Crosby and says his creativity is from soviet hockey that is BS.

 

[Mattilaus]

Try not to see it as a geopolitical statement. I'm sure he'd credit ovechkins style in some measure to Canadian players who came before him. Were all in this big hockey stew pot together. In a similar sense, neuvirth owes his style to French Canada, but we all share it now.

Was just about to post something similar. Ovechkin is currently 9th in hits in the NHL. Hits and rough play are predominantly seen as north american style.

In a strange way, the the explosive checking you see from Ovechkin is a product of Canadian toughness....

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

NBA booms because they don't play defense, much like the NFL. They have legislated out all of the true advantages.

Can't really do that in hockey, they'll always find something new.

Or you open up an unintended case of player safety concerns, have it attributed to the "new" speed of the game by regressive media voices you're too incompetent to control, and end up walking all your new, exciting rules back further back than either of those leagues.

And the worst part of all this is, 3/4ths of teams that made the CF or better, did so because they injured one of the other team's best players through the same type of reckless (or worse) play that we're "trying to get out of the league."

 

[haseoke39]

That is where you are wrong....maybe. Players take on a style usually they try to emulate a certain player or players. If Crosby says I grew up watching Lemieux and Gretzky and tried to emulate them then Soviet hockey has NOTHING to do with it.

What Rob is saying is about the game it is completely different then what I am talking about. Larianov makes a statement but Paxon takes it as an opinion. How Crosby styles his play is something that you need to ask Crosby, you need to ask McDavid, you need to ask Kane and Toews.

How the game is played on the ice is not what Larianov is talking about with the quote I posted. He is saying without Soviet hockey Crosby is not the player he is today.

Maybe lemieux and Gretzky owe something to soviet hockey too. They were great while those guys were growing up as well.

Really, I don't think the nationality is even the important part of his point. It's about style. Style can sometimes be easier to convey by referring to a famous example or teams where it flourished, but that doesn't mean it only belongs there.

 

[OkimLom]

That is where you are wrong....maybe. Players take on a style usually they try to emulate a certain player or players. If Crosby says I grew up watching Lemieux and Gretzky and tried to emulate them then Soviet hockey has NOTHING to do with it.

What Rob is saying is about the game it is completely different then what I am talking about. Larianov makes a statement but Paxon takes it as an opinion. How Crosby styles his play is something that you need to ask Crosby, you need to ask McDavid, you need to ask Kane and Toews.

How the game is played on the ice is not what Larianov is talking about with the quote I posted. He is saying without Soviet hockey Crosby is not the player he is today.

There is two things here, the style of the game and the style of the player. When Larianov brings up Crosby and says his creativity is from soviet hockey that is BS.

I think you may be reading way too much into the whole Crosby being thrown in as part this statement.

Soviet/Russian hockey influenced younger generations to work on more finesse stickhandling skills and one on one skills, which Crosby and the other superstars incorporate today, and helped many players improve with their skating habits and training. There is a lot of influence from Soviet/Russian Hockey in games today.

I think the North American game focuses on natural ability and the mental side of the game which is showcased in Crosby and other superstars.

Maybe Crosby would still be Crosby, but to dismiss the influence of guys like Fedorov or Kovalev or Bure had on the game is wrong.

 

[thewookie1]

I actually like modern hockey outside of NJ's style. The NBA and NFL did away with Defense practically I don't see that as a good thing; the best games are in the playoffs and they are hard hitting, and defensive yet teams still score. Aside from NJD games the NHL is fast enough, I don't want prissy European style hockey where its purely a game of speed and skill, I quite like the combination of skill and strength. Fighting is slowly being phased out but I'd rather not ban it outright regardless.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

Good article. Lotta push these days to understand the Soviet's systems from the 60s-70s. The 72 summit series really opened a lot of eyes around the NHL. The Soviet teams up to the collapse, the trap, and the salary cap should be up there with the forward pass as some of the most important events int he evolution of hockey.

 

[Namejs]

Soviet-style hockey has been absorbed into everything we see in the sport, so I'm not sure that's really fair to say. Offensive play has been pretty heavily influenced by the kind of movement the Soviets brought to the game in the 50's.

What did the Soviets bring to the game in the 50s? (That's an honest question).

Organized hockey in the Soviet Union only took off in the late 40s and a lot of their early influences came from bandy (which was the dominant type of hockey in parts of Europe and Russia in the early 20th century) and other European hockey teams. The early pioneers of hockey in Russia were Czechs and Latvians, by the way.

I'm not a hockey historian, but I'm afraid you're looking at it purely from a North American perspective. A lot of what they were doing was intrinsic to the way bandy was played (mostly because of the much bigger ice surface), so it's not really something unique to the Soviets, it's just that they perfected it using the advantages of their socialist sports system and appropriated it to 'North American hockey'.

But I can't really see how it relates to what I said about Soviet-style hockey being obsolete. Obviously, I was talking about Larionov's time. Hockey has changed since then and things aren't ever going back, barring some major changes in NHL rules (such as the dimensions of the rink).

 

[Namejs]

Also, describing the way hockey is currently played in the NHL purely as a function of an alleged lack of intelligence or aptitude of hockey coaches in North America is ignorant, arrogant and downright ludicrous.

 

[cybresabre]

Probably because it's just not a very popular surname.

If the puckbunnies of the world have any game at all, there will be a lot more Zetterbergs in the league than Datsyuks.

What Rob is saying is about the game it is completely different then what I am talking about. Larianov makes a statement but Paxon takes it as an opinion. How Crosby styles his play is something that you need to ask Crosby, you need to ask McDavid, you need to ask Kane and Toews.

Crosby, 21 with an NHL scoring title and MVP award on his resume as he heads into the stretch drive of his fourth season, grew up watching the skating styles of former and current Russian-born players Alexander Mogilny, Sergei Fedorov and Pavel Bure. He noted the churning legs but not a lot of movement in their midsections and upper bodies, a good combination for speed and stick control.

"Bure was unbelievable," Crosby said. "He was probably ahead of his time. Nobody could skate with him for the longest time, and then guys, I'm sure, caught on to some of the stuff he did and secrets got out."

Post-Gazette

 

[Paxon]

What did the Soviets bring to the game in the 50s? (That's an honest question).

Organized hockey in the Soviet Union only took off in the late 40s and a lot of their early influences came from bandy (which was the dominant type of hockey in parts of Europe and Russia in the early 20th century) and other European hockey teams. The early pioneers of hockey in Russia were Czechs and Latvians, by the way.

I'm not a hockey historian, but I'm afraid you're looking at it purely from a North American perspective. A lot of what they were doing was intrinsic to the way bandy was played (mostly because of the much bigger ice surface), so it's not really something unique to the Soviets, it's just that they perfected it using the advantages of their socialist sports system and appropriated it to 'North American hockey'.

But I can't really see how it relates to what I said about Soviet-style hockey being obsolete. Obviously, I was talking about Larionov's time. Hockey has changed since then and things aren't ever going back, barring some major changes in NHL rules (such as the dimensions of the rink).

I know a bit about bandy, at least its historical role and from some footage. It seems like field hockey on ice more or less. You should note that I've said "Soviet" not "Russian" throughout the thread. I don't have to tell you Latvia fell under the Soviet banner for essentially the entire relevant time period. Of course there was a lot of osmosis in European hockey the same as there was within North American hockey, which is why I said the Soviet Union certainly doesn't get full credit, but they're the ones who perfected it on top of their own innovations and they're the ones who opened eyes in North America.

Crossing off-puck player movement, east-west game, working the puck for the perfect shot, etc were all hallmarks of the Soviet game pretty much from the arrival of the Soviet Union as a notable hockey force.

In terms of hockey changing and thus making a "Soviet style" irrelevant I'm not sure to what extent that is true. The actual Soviet players who joined the NHL faced issues in their time period. They either had to adjust or their games were not as effective as they could have been/were outside of the NHL. If you think about the great success Detroit had with Soviet players a big part of it was that for a while you had 5 of them playing together as a unit. So much has been integrated both ways between North America and Europe that the differences are much more minor. It's obsolete, sure, just like hockey the way North Americans played at the time is in large parts obsolete, with both being in large parts relevant.

 

[enthusiast]

Watch that Red Army doc~

 

[Paxon]

Watch that Red Army doc~

I'm holding off for the home release. Been looking forward to it though.

 

[sabrebuild]

You think Kane, Toews and Crosby would tell you the same? I grew up watching and playing hockey in the 80s 90s until now and I am not sure there is a Canadian player who modeled themselves off of soviet hockey. I am 99% sure I never saw a Russian jersey on a Canadian hockey player growing up and even now.

Sorry not buying it. Not buying if Russians never joined the NHL players wouldn't be deking and dangling the way they do now. That is nonsense. The greatest moves I ever saw came from Mario Lemieux (Sakic, Yzerman and Gretzky too) My guess is 99% off North Americans modeled themselves after them. I mean that is what it is all about, mimicking a style.

and another reason why I don't buy it is McDavid is McDavid before he knew where Russia is on a map. That goes with Kane, Toews and Crosby. Those players are those type of plyers long before "Soviet Hockey" influences their playing style.

It's very humorous that you use this example, while making broad generalizations yourself. Mario explicitly commented multiple times in his own biography about loving the European and specifically the Soviet game and how it matched his game directly and was a strong influence.

Every time you see a transition game at any level of hockey that incorporates layers of players that support each other, that came from Soviet Russia originally. At this point many of the styles from different countries have melded so you won't hear a lot people say now that they play any specific countries' style. The game has changed dramatically and a lot of that has been a melding of North American hockey from the 50s-80s and Euro hockey from the 50s-80s.

If you look at how N.A. hockey was played until the late 70s early 80s you see a game that looks a lot like bubble hockey, everybody stayed in their lanes. European connections with soccer helped create the fluid modern game you see now.

The most correct part of the quote is how coaching is killing in game creativity. A guy like Datsyuk would get screamed at in amateur hockey every time one of is slick breakaway moves or passing plays got stopped. Meanwhile it is that same style and vision and style of game that also allows him to read the game and pick pocket people and play sick defense.

In my opinion amateur hockey today has created a lot of better athletes, even more highly skilled athletes technically speaking as in more guys can pick corners or pull toe drags in general, but there has been a real loss in how guys understand the flow of the game or read their opponents. By the time kids are 10-12 they are already playing systems hockey with coaches tight on the controls. And that doesn't matter if the coach is a former goon or grinder. The key is they want control and all that is important is winning even at low levels.

If you have a high level kid, they would be better off not learning systems until they are 16+ roughly, and up till then make them work skills like crazy and small area games were they have to learn how to play with skill while having an opponent right in their face. One of the best things about soccer for young hockey players is the vision involved in the game and the personal space gets tightened compared to hockey. No stick so contact has to be hand to hand, which makes a lot of people uncomfortable. Short story, make your kid play soccer and play pond hockey.

 

[wunderpanda]

In a general way, I agree with Larionov; Russian hockey simply has different fundamentals. ESPN has an amazing 30 for 30 about the 1980 game from the Russian perspective, spends quality time on the coaching philosophy of the 70s and 80s Soviet teams. Dump and chase, forcing play to the boards, grinding it out, those are not ways to spark or nurture creativity.

Silly that people are offended by Larionov, 70s NHL inspired Slap Shot, Soviet hockey was different, it showed kids a different way to play. If Kharlamov inspired Gretzky then his influence is carried on by anyone inspired by Gretzky, if Mogilny inspired Kane, then he carries on through Kane.


*edit*
http://espn.go.com/30for30/film?page=ofmiraclesandmen

 

[sabrebuild]

Also, describing the way hockey is currently played in the NHL purely as a function of an alleged lack of intelligence or aptitude of hockey coaches in North America is ignorant, arrogant and downright ludicrous.

I didn't read that as him calling them stupid, but more winning oriented than developing a certain style of game, that the rules at the NHL don't support as well as a physical style.

I would always call the big stylistic differences from back in the day as Euro vs NA, more than Russia vs Canada.

Beside what Pax has already said, one of the big differences between the two styles, which is again humorous compared to the talking points of today, was that the Euro/Soviet style was all about team. Play within the team, support the flow of your teammates, don't just watch your guy go for the net, support the puck, support the puck, pass the puck.... That stuff was not a huge part of the NA game until the late 70s early 80s and it wasn't until the Oilers really dominated the league that that style of game infected all of NA.

What would be a better question, which Larionov didn't bring up, is if you look at the actual numbers of registered Russian players vs the rest of the world and specifically the US and Canada, there is a major disproportionate amount of elite talent at the NHL level of Russians. Why is that? I'd argue its because they still emphasize skill training and flow hockey over systems and physical play at a young age.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

Watch that Red Army doc~

Or the ESPN special

 

[old kummelweck]

totally agree.

 

[kirby11]

There's a thread in the History of Hockey section that looks at the issue Larionov is talking about. It's kinda dead now but it has a lot of good info, think it's called "the progress paradox: moving towards boredom in hockey" or something like that.

The game has just gotten too fast and too coach controlled at all levels. Players are too afraid to take risks and make unconventional plays cause they'll get benched if they don't work. even if they try creative plays, very few teammates will be thinking to look for out of the ordinary passes/skating lanes/etc.

Not to mention, there's the bigger issue of facing more devastating injuries due to stronger/bigger/faster players, better training, improved equipment, etc.

 

[jBuds]

Regarding the take in the article, it's probably because "simple" is what wins championships.

Players can simplify their games and not lose creativity.

 

[enthusiast]

Regarding the take in the article, it's probably because "simple" is what wins championships.

Players can simplify their games and not lose creativity.

well yeah, the point is that the collective league consciousness has created a situation where that's an almost exclusionary case

in time the tide will shift again

 

[Jim Bob]

Coaches today try and coach mistakes out of the game.

Pure and simple.

And creative players, as they are developing, will make mistakes.

The question is how do you get more coaches to allow players to be creative and learn from mistakes and not just coach a simple, low risk game.

USA Hockey is trying to do that with the ADM. But, too many coaches put winning ahead of player development.

 

[Namejs]

I know a bit about bandy, at least its historical role and from some footage. It seems like field hockey on ice more or less. You should note that I've said "Soviet" not "Russian" throughout the thread. I don't have to tell you Latvia fell under the Soviet banner for essentially the entire relevant time period. Of course there was a lot of osmosis in European hockey the same as there was within North American hockey, which is why I said the Soviet Union certainly doesn't get full credit, but they're the ones who perfected it on top of their own innovations and they're the ones who opened eyes in North America.

Crossing off-puck player movement, east-west game, working the puck for the perfect shot, etc were all hallmarks of the Soviet game pretty much from the arrival of the Soviet Union as a notable hockey force.

In terms of hockey changing and thus making a "Soviet style" irrelevant I'm not sure to what extent that is true. The actual Soviet players who joined the NHL faced issues in their time period. They either had to adjust or their games were not as effective as they could have been/were outside of the NHL. If you think about the great success Detroit had with Soviet players a big part of it was that for a while you had 5 of them playing together as a unit. So much has been integrated both ways between North America and Europe that the differences are much more minor. It's obsolete, sure, just like hockey the way North Americans played at the time is in large parts obsolete, with both being in large parts relevant.

The 'relevant' time period starts way before the 1950s. To my knowledge, there aren't any unique innovations that the Soviets brought to the game by the 1950s. So, seeing that you mentioned that specific time period, I feel that there's a need to clear things up a bit.

The Soviets *did not* play what we now call 'hockey' before it was brought to them by Europeans in the 1930s/40s. And, yes, many of them were Latvians. The rules of hockey were translated into Russian by a Latvian, some of the early coaches were Latvian (the Russian term for a 'penalty shot' in hockey comes from Latvian because of this), Latvians were among the first ones to teach them stickhandling the puck, etc. And, yes, even in the mid-to-late-40s some of the Soviet players were still Latvians/Czechs, as were a few of the teams in their first hockey championship in 1946, because 'Canadian hockey' (as the Russians called it) still hadn't caught up with bandy in terms of popularity, while hockey was already being played en masse in other parts of Europe, including Latvia, where hockey was introduced in 1909.

Even more important is to understand that the two different schools of hockey (North American<->European) have been like that since the emergence of hockey as a sport. Lesser physicality, an east-west game, great puckhandling are all inherent to European hockey and it has virtually nothing to do with Soviet-specific innovations. Where do you think all the soft Euros/Russians come from? Do you think we don't eat enough protein at the other side of Atlantic or something? It's just a different school of hockey, which has emerged a long time ago due to playing on bigger ice surfaces.

Figuratively speaking, Soviet hockey is the child of European hockey and bandy. The only credit they should have is for spreading it to North America. Or, in other words, they didn't bring that style of play to hockey, they brought it to North America.

As for Larionov, his words sound like something that was taken straight out of some old Soviet newspaper. In fact, it sounds exactly like what the Russian bandy coaches in the 1930s told about Canadian hockey - "it's primitive, physical and they don't even have set-plays in hockey". It makes as little sense as it did back then (when talking about hockey played on small ice).

 

[Namejs]

I didn't read that as him calling them stupid, but more winning oriented than developing a certain style of game, that the rules at the NHL don't support as well as a physical style.

I would always call the big stylistic differences from back in the day as Euro vs NA, more than Russia vs Canada.

Beside what Pax has already said, one of the big differences between the two styles, which is again humorous compared to the talking points of today, was that the Euro/Soviet style was all about team. Play within the team, support the flow of your teammates, don't just watch your guy go for the net, support the puck, support the puck, pass the puck.... That stuff was not a huge part of the NA game until the late 70s early 80s and it wasn't until the Oilers really dominated the league that that style of game infected all of NA.

What would be a better question, which Larionov didn't bring up, is if you look at the actual numbers of registered Russian players vs the rest of the world and specifically the US and Canada, there is a major disproportionate amount of elite talent at the NHL level of Russians. Why is that? I'd argue its because they still emphasize skill training and flow hockey over systems and physical play at a young age.

Well, exactly, they are winning-oriented, while Larionov almost takes a religious stance and believes that there's some mysterious value in and of itself in playing a creative east-west game. Which is absurd.

How many elite Russian hockey players are currently out there? 4? 5? That's not disproportionate when compared to other European nations. I'd argue that Sweden has even more elite players per registered hockey player. Same with Finland, probably.

Why is that? I'm not sure, but it might have something to do with kids and their coaches in North America being less focused on systematic, hardcore training at a very young age. It's more about fun and enjoying the game. But I really don't know, I'm just speculating. It's an interesting topic, though.

 

[Paxon]

The 'relevant' time period starts way before the 1950s. To my knowledge, there aren't any unique innovations that the Soviets brought to the game by the 1950s. So, seeing that you mentioned that specific time period, I feel that there's a need to clear things up a bit.

The Soviets *did not* play what we now call 'hockey' before it was brought to them by Europeans in the 1930s/40s. And, yes, many of them were Latvians. The rules of hockey were translated into Russian by a Latvian, some of the early coaches were Latvian (the Russian term for a 'penalty shot' in hockey comes from Latvian because of this), Latvians were among the first ones to teach them stickhandling the puck, etc. And, yes, even in the mid-to-late-40s some of the Soviet players were still Latvians/Czechs, as were a few of the teams in their first hockey championship in 1946, because 'Canadian hockey' (as the Russians called it) still hadn't caught up with bandy in terms of popularity, while hockey was already being played en masse in other parts of Europe, including Latvia, where hockey was introduced in 1909.

Even more important is to understand that the two different schools of hockey (North American<->European) have been like that since the emergence of hockey as a sport. Lesser physicality, an east-west game, great puckhandling are all inherent to European hockey and it has virtually nothing to do with Soviet-specific innovations. Where do you think all the soft Euros/Russians come from? Do you think we don't eat enough protein at the other side of Atlantic or something? It's just a different school of hockey, which has emerged a long time ago due to playing on bigger ice surfaces.

Figuratively speaking, Soviet hockey is the child of European hockey and bandy. The only credit they should have is for spreading it to North America. Or, in other words, they didn't bring that style of play to hockey, they brought it to North America.

As for Larionov, his words sound like something that was taken straight out of some old Soviet newspaper. In fact, it sounds exactly like what the Russian bandy coaches in the 1930s told about Canadian hockey - "it's primitive, physical and they don't even have set-plays in hockey". It makes as little sense as it did back then (when talking about hockey played on small ice).

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.

As I said, there was and is a lot of osmosis in European hockey but if you think someone like Tarasov simply took existing European hockey without bringing innovations have at it. When you say something like "figuratively speaking, Soviet hockey is the child of European ice hockey and bandy" that should imply off the bat you think the Soviets brought something unique on the ice, otherwise the statement doesn't make sense as it'd simply be the child of European ice hockey. The amount of player and puck movement with the Soviets was a step beyond what was seen from other European teams based on the games I've seen. Talent's a factor but it's not just talent, nevermind that talent development should be part of the equation.