Let's Watch - 1972/9/02 - USSR vs Canada - Game 1 at Montréal

[Merya]

In my opinion, the USSR was never been better in any area of hockey than Canada... except perhaps at the level of the most elite 12-or-so players around 1979 or something.

The early-1970s Soviets were clearly better conditioned than Canadian players in September (that's what happens when you're in the army) and played a puck-possession style better than Canadian players. But beyond that... nothing.

If you were to take the best, say, 50 players at any point in history, Canada is deeper and better.

In all the Canada Cup tournaments, the best Canadian players (and often the very best were missing, like Orr and Lemieux) had two weeks or whatever to form a "team" and play out of season. That's a massive handicap every time. When we're looking at close series that Canada lost -- in 1981 for example --, if the Canadian unit had had three years to play together every week, live, travel, and practice together every day, then I'm not sure these short series would have even been that close.

Since the playing field has been levelled in the modern era, and the best Russian players are also now made-up hodge-podge of individuals from various teams and countries in the Olympics with little time to form a cohesive team, the Russians have won... nothing.

You really sound like a parody when touting the obvious. You and people of similar mind are the onlyones who ever questioned the things you are saying above. Try to loosen up the patriotism screw a little. You're only making yourself look ridiculous.
The interesting thing in this game is, it shows the Soviets playing a game that has some resemblance to modern hockey, while Canada is playing what a game we nowadays see in beer leagues and only call hockey grudgingly.
Canada has always had the individual players, but often have fallen short as a team, both because of poor coaches and poor teamplay, maybe even teamspirit. This aspect has unfortunately narrowed in the past 10-20 years and some players of the younger generation play better game in 4th line than superstars did in older times, ie. they raise their level instead of dropping it.
Also, when you're the top dog, and loudly claim to be one, don't be surprised when everyone else hates you in international play.

 

[The Panther]

You really sound like a parody when touting the obvious. You and people of similar mind are the onlyones who ever questioned the things you are saying above. Try to loosen up the patriotism screw a little. You're only making yourself look ridiculous.
The interesting thing in this game is, it shows the Soviets playing a game that has some resemblance to modern hockey, while Canada is playing what a game we nowadays see in beer leagues and only call hockey grudgingly.
Canada has always had the individual players, but often have fallen short as a team, both because of poor coaches and poor teamplay, maybe even teamspirit. This aspect has unfortunately narrowed in the past 10-20 years and some players of the younger generation play better game in 4th line than superstars did in older times, ie. they raise their level instead of dropping it.
Also, when you're the top dog, and loudly claim to be one, don't be surprised when everyone else hates you in international play.

That's an... interesting take.

So, my main point -- if we read my post -- was that in major international tournaments, Canada has had to throw an ad-hoc team together in a matter of days or weeks, whereas prior to 1991 or whatever, the USSR did not. Despite this, Canada won most of the best-on-best tournaments from 1972 to 1991. Your reaction to this observation is that I should "loosen the patriotism screw a little". That's fascinating, because if there's one thing I've never been accused of, it's being too patriotic! It's the first time in my life to hear that. (For reference, I almost joined the Communist Party at one point, I don't stand for national anthems, and I've barely lived in Canada during the past 12-20 years.)

Then, you describe the hockey played by Canada's All Stars (minus Orr and Hull) in 1972 as "beer league" and called hockey "only... grudgingly". But I'm too "loud" apparently.

Those beer leaguers thrown together in haste won the tournament, by the way.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Watched the 1st period of game 1 this morning. The first half of the first, Canada is clearly gonna blow them out of the water. They're getting to the net better, they're making better plays through the NZ (surprisingly). This is a walk. Esposito looked good. Frank Mahovlich always impresses me...if he really wanted it, he might have been able to be Jagr good...he was quite a talent. If Gary Bergmann was born like ten years later, and grew up watching how the new defense training would work, he would have been so much better...but he was just short of understanding the lanes and routes that Orr would come to dominate...

On the Soviet side, they naturally take things over in the second half of the 1st, but they still don't look very sharp yet. Kharlamov leads the way on skill. Zimin is a player I am not super familiar with, but man alive, he has a bomb of a shot...his finishing ability looks like it's insane for this era...why did he not end up being a bigger part of the proceedings going forward (or backward)...? I'm basing this off of one period of play really, but I know a finisher when I see one...I would have recalled this guy in later tournaments almost certainly...I have seen large chunks of this tournament itself, and I don't even recall seeing him before...

 

[Theokritos]

Zimin is a player I am not super familiar with, but man alive, he has a bomb of a shot...his finishing ability looks like it's insane for this era...why did he not end up being a bigger part of the proceedings going forward (or backward)...? I'm basing this off of one period of play really, but I know a finisher when I see one...I would have recalled this guy in later tournaments almost certainly...I have seen large chunks of this tournament itself, and I don't even recall seeing him before...

He was very talented, but lacked consistency and wasn't exactly even-keeled. He didn't deal well with criticism and setbacks and was easily offended and upset.

Starshinov: "You never know what to expect from Zimin. More often than not: a brilliant and breath-taking game. But sometimes it seems as if he has completely forgotten how to play hockey. Then his speed and his fast reactions somehow disappear and his sharp and stealthy shots become easy to read and to block. And suddenly that fearless, cheerful and unstoppable Yevgeny makes a sour face and grumbles at his partners and the referees when in reality he should take offence at himself."

Tarasov: "Yevgeny Zimin is without any doubt very talented. His fine technique is complemented by his explosive speed. True, unfortunately he is not very well oriented on the ice. In my opinion, his main weakness is that his judgment fails in some of the most critical moments. He often makes bad decisions: instead of going to the opponent and trying to beat him, Zimin wastes time in an empty space. He skates around instead of heading towards the goal right away. The coaches have repeatedly told him about these weaknesses, but Yevgeni doesn't listen to our remarks. Of course, Zimin is still a great player, but has he fully developed his talent?"

The Summit Series was his fourth shot at the national team, but unfortunately an appendictis put him out of action after Game 2.

More details in the Zimin bio.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yeah, that's what I was wondering about him...sometimes those big athletic fellas, or super-skilled goal scorers lack some hockey IQ because they don't need it, per se...very interesting stuff, I'll look forward to finishing that game 1 and getting another look at him somewhere hopefully, just for my own edification...

 

[JackSlater]

He was very talented, but lacked consistency and wasn't exactly even-keeled. He didn't deal well with criticism and setbacks and was easily offended and upset.

Starshinov: "You never know what to expect from Zimin. More often than not: a brilliant and breath-taking game. But sometimes it seems as if he has completely forgotten how to play hockey. Then his speed and his fast reactions somehow disappear and his sharp and stealthy shots become easy to read and to block. And suddenly that fearless, cheerful and unstoppable Yevgeny makes a sour face and grumbles at his partners and the referees when in reality he should take offence at himself."

Tarasov: "Yevgeny Zimin is without any doubt very talented. His fine technique is complemented by his explosive speed. True, unfortunately he is not very well oriented on the ice. In my opinion, his main weakness is that his judgment fails in some of the most critical moments. He often makes bad decisions: instead of going to the opponent and trying to beat him, Zimin wastes time in an empty space. He skates around instead of heading towards the goal right away. The coaches have repeatedly told him about these weaknesses, but Yevgeni doesn't listen to our remarks. Of course, Zimin is still a great player, but has he fully developed his talent?"

The Summit Series was his fourth shot at the national team, but unfortunately an appendictis put him out of action after Game 2.

More details in the Zimin bio.

Sounds like Zimin was born two decades too early to be dubbed an "enigmatic Russian".

I've watched the Summit Series through twice and a few of the single games a few other times. Pete Mahovlich looks good in this game (as he tends to in the series) as does Brad Park. I don't think that anyone gets underpraised for their performance in this series, on either team, more than Park does. In my eyes he is easily the best defenceman in the series and the gap between him and number 2 (Savard in limited game action probably) is far bigger than the gap that you'd see between the top forwards or goaltenders.

It's also good to see USSR playing in a different and more enjoyable style to watch than was typical of the time. The Soviet forward lines look far more cohesive and just generally better than the Canadian lines do, which is fairly consistent throughout the series. Very nice seeing Kharlamov playing at an elite level and Yakushev picking up steam as well.

 

[Professor What]

I'm not really saying anything that everyone here doesn't already know, but I don't think it should come as any surprise whatsoever that the Soviets looked more like a team in that series for one simple reason: they were.

Let's not forget that, in addition to the fact that the national team was a huge deal and that they trained together, a lot of those guys were teammates on CSKA Moscow. In terms not only of the levels of their players, but also cohesion, that was one of the truly great teams the world has ever seen. Yes, the Canadians had the star power, but they were never going to have that same level of cohesion. The fact that the Soviets weren't quite so far back in individual talent as everyone assumed combined with that factor meant guaranteed a better series than anyone seemed to expect. I really think there's some degree of balance that has to be thrown in there to get the true picture.

On a humorous loosely related note I figured I'd share with you guys, I once had a conversation with someone who knew almost nothing about hockey but wanted to sound like an expert make this big spiel to me about the Miracle on Ice. He tried to argue that the Americans won because, even though the players weren't as good, they were a better team. I took the time to explain to him how the Soviet system worked, and I could tell it blew his mind. He just stared at me for a few seconds then said, "But they were the better team. They had to be." He walked away very confused.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Kharlamov is just a cut above virtually everyone else on the ice...

Mahovlich got fairly close to pulling a Forsberg/Nilsson on the third (?) goal of game 2 haha