MSN Top 10 Hockey Coaches All-time?

[pluppe]

No one was asking Shero to adjust to the great Hab Dynasty but once Bowman showed the league how it was done Shero did not adjust well to the other top league teams, never going back to the finals with the Flyers. With the Rangers and a modified approach he reached the finals but then the team regressed.

Pollock - might as well go back to Frank Selke Sr who put together the team for Irvin and Blake. Blake did what Irvin could not. As for Pollock who took over from Selke and continued to work in harmony with Blake you still have the fact that Ruel and MacNeil were found wanting while Bowman did the job. Bowman also did a great job with the expansion Blues - better use of the same ingredients that others had access to but passed.

Tarasov / Tikhonov. Great ability to do more with less BUT strictly under the Soviet system. Did not build something that was sustainable beyond the fall of the Soviet Union.None of the post Soviet coaches who trace their lineage back to T/T have approached even modest success.

Getting back to Toe Blake - the coaching lineage is impressive starting with Blake who mentored Bowman who mentored/coached Arbour and Sather, finally mentoring Babcock. Point could be made that Dick Irvin Sr started the lineage - Day, Primeau, Blake but in all three instances the students out did the professor.

this is one of the strangest critisisms I have ever read. do you know anything about the fall of the Soviet Union.

so he didn´t build a system for hockey-coaching that went unaffected by the complete change of the society it existed in. what a schmuck.

it´s almost like complaining that somebody didn´t build a sand castle on Omaha Beach strong enough to stand through D-Day.

 

[jkrx]

this is one of the strangest critisisms I have ever read. do you know anything about the fall of the Soviet Union.

so he didn´t build a system for hockey-coaching that went unaffected by the complete change of the society it existed in. what a schmuck.

it´s almost like complaining that somebody didn´t build a sand castle on Omaha Beach strong enough to stand through D-Day.

so true and funny m8. Good job.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Others Managed

this is one of the strangest critisisms I have ever read. do you know anything about the fall of the Soviet Union.

so he didn´t build a system for hockey-coaching that went unaffected by the complete change of the society it existed in. what a schmuck.

it´s almost like complaining that somebody didn´t build a sand castle on Omaha Beach strong enough to stand through D-Day.

Do know a little bit more than you suspect about the changes after the fall of the Soviet Union.

You did not have a complete change in society. Those in power, stayed in power as evidenced by Vladimir Putin. Money went from state hands into the hands of the oligarchs, bypassing the the common Russian as it always had.

As for hockey as taught by Tarasov and Tikhonov, my point is very valid. The collective approach they favoured simply disappeared. Offensively under T & T you would see forwards sacrifice position for the good of the team - prime example the wingers going and staying wide to create or open passing lanes for the other players. Today Russian hockey has become me, myself and I. Players rush to get into the prime scoring areas to the detriment of the team. Passing is an after thought for the forwards - an option when it is not possible to shoot.

The basic point is that the coaches in Russia today who played for both or one of T & T, either by choice or omission have not applied the basics taught by both and that are basic hockey truisms regardless of social of political system choosing the view that anything that was part of the Soviet era must be bad and done away with.

As such the fault is as much the teacher's as the student's . The teacher for not getting the message across that basic hockey truisms stand on their own.

Soviet era science managed to withstand the change,the German and Japanese work ethic and knowledge managed to survive world wars amongst many examples.

 

[jkrx]

Do know a little bit more than you suspect about the changes after the fall of the Soviet Union.

You did not have a complete change in society. Those in power, stayed in power as evidenced by Vladimir Putin. Money went from state hands into the hands of the oligarchs, bypassing the the common Russian as it always had.

As for hockey as taught by Tarasov and Tikhonov, my point is very valid. The collective approach they favoured simply disappeared. Offensively under T & T you would see forwards sacrifice position for the good of the team - prime example the wingers going and staying wide to create or open passing lanes for the other players. Today Russian hockey has become me, myself and I. Players rush to get into the prime scoring areas to the detriment of the team. Passing is an after thought for the forwards - an option when it is not possible to shoot.

The basic point is that the coaches in Russia today who played for both or one of T & T, either by choice or omission have not applied the basics taught by both and that are basic hockey truisms regardless of social of political system choosing the view that anything that was part of the Soviet era must be bad and done away with.

As such the fault is as much the teacher's as the student's . The teacher for not getting the message across that basic hockey truisms stand on their own.

Soviet era science managed to withstand the change,the German and Japanese work ethic and knowledge managed to survive world wars amongst many examples.

Well... its hard to manage alot of players whos only goal is to defect to NHL. I would say that was the biggest problem. If he deserves to be on a top10 list might be disputable but he is definitly top15 of all time.

..and if we are going to have junior coaches on the list we might aswell add SEL, FEL coaches to the list like Lundmark and Evensson.

 

[pluppe]

Do know a little bit more than you suspect about the changes after the fall of the Soviet Union.

You did not have a complete change in society. Those in power, stayed in power as evidenced by Vladimir Putin. Money went from state hands into the hands of the oligarchs, bypassing the the common Russian as it always had.

As for hockey as taught by Tarasov and Tikhonov, my point is very valid. The collective approach they favoured simply disappeared. Offensively under T & T you would see forwards sacrifice position for the good of the team - prime example the wingers going and staying wide to create or open passing lanes for the other players. Today Russian hockey has become me, myself and I. Players rush to get into the prime scoring areas to the detriment of the team. Passing is an after thought for the forwards - an option when it is not possible to shoot.

The basic point is that the coaches in Russia today who played for both or one of T & T, either by choice or omission have not applied the basics taught by both and that are basic hockey truisms regardless of social of political system choosing the view that anything that was part of the Soviet era must be bad and done away with.

As such the fault is as much the teacher's as the student's . The teacher for not getting the message across that basic hockey truisms stand on their own.

Soviet era science managed to withstand the change,the German and Japanese work ethic and knowledge managed to survive world wars amongst many examples.

not really sure what you are talking about.

and I suspected you knew this, never said I didn´t. my question was merely rhetorical. but speaking about your knowledge in how the monies flow through russia, and since you said it´s similar to before, tell me this.

do hockey-players today have a different salary situation in russia?

do hockey-players today have a different opportunity to move out of russia?

if the answers are: yes, much higher, and: yes, much much greater, do you think this would affect how you could form a system to the greatest advantage before and after these differences?

here´s a bonus question (rhetorical): are you aware that there are diffrences in the societies of Japan, Germany and Russia?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Cuban BB Players

Well... its hard to manage alot of players whos only goal is to defect to NHL. I would say that was the biggest problem. If he deserves to be on a top10 list might be disputable but he is definitly top15 of all time.

..and if we are going to have junior coaches on the list we might aswell add SEL, FEL coaches to the list like Lundmark and Evensson.

Cuban baseball coaches are faced with the same dilemma - star players wanting to defect to the USA and MLB. Yet with little fan fare they manage they manage to take the basics of baseball that arrived in Cuba generations before Castro and the revolution and teach them in a fashion that will sustain for generations after.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I visited Moscow last year. It's full of sushi restaurants. Some even have menus in English. I actually ate at a McDonald's one time because I was in a hurry. Advertisements are everywhere, many of them for Western product.

Lenin's tomb is heavily guarded by the military, so it isn't vandalized by all the Russian who would want to.

Yeah, Russia has changed a lot since the days of the USSR.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Basics

not really sure what you are talking about.

and I suspected you knew this, never said I didn´t. my question was merely rhetorical. but speaking about your knowledge in how the monies flow through russia, and since you said it´s similar to before, tell me this.

do hockey-players today have a different salary situation in russia?

do hockey-players today have a different opportunity to move out of russia?

if the answers are: yes, much higher, and: yes, much much greater, do you think this would affect how you could form a system to the greatest advantage before and after these differences?

here´s a bonus question (rhetorical): are you aware that there are diffrences in the societies of Japan, Germany and Russia?

Hockey players started leaving the Soviet Union for salary opportunities before the fall of the Soviet Union. Effectively the ones with the greatest skill set as opposed to the single outstanding skill players had the greatest demand and success.

During the 2009-10 season there were 32 Russian players in the NHL.After the fall of the Soviet Union, during the 1992-93 season there were 43 with a higher skill set that differentiated them from the NA players. Today the comparable overall difference in skill set has disappeared and and the number of Russians has dropped by almost 25 %. Data from www.nhl.com . Simply while the opportunities are greater outside Russia those with the skill set or r willingness to respond to the opportunity levels are not being produced.

As for your questions, rhetorical or otherwise. Salaries are much greater in the NHL today, then they were in 1992-93. The NHLPA existed long before 1992-93 and still exists today. The KHL factor. Haven for the post NHL career - Fedorov, lazy, unmotivated - Yashin, Zherdev, average AHL - Valentenko with a few that leverage being Russian into higher salaries in Russia - Perezhogin, Emelin, Korneev. Also the KHL does not have a KHLPA or equivalent see - first aid issues at KHL arenas.

The players are still without power in the KHL. Yet while the dollars are more attractive, the hockey skills have basically disappeared as has the motivation. The KHL now relies on fringe former NHL players to fill their rosters. So while the salaries may be higher and the opportunities greater the production of players capable of responding to both the opportunities and demand has fallen drastically behind mainly because the foundation that produced the players that were NHL caliber in the early 1990's did not stand the test of time.

As for your bonus question Are you aware that the definition of a society is based on differences? No differences and we are all effectively one society.

 

[pluppe]

Cuban baseball coaches are faced with the same dilemma - star players wanting to defect to the USA and MLB. Yet with little fan fare they manage they manage to take the basics of baseball that arrived in Cuba generations before Castro and the revolution and teach them in a fashion that will sustain for generations after.

Cuba is still a one-party communist/socialist state. Russia is not. Useless comparison.

Hockey players started leaving the Soviet Union for salary opportunities before the fall of the Soviet Union. Effectively the ones with the greatest skill set as opposed to the single outstanding skill players had the greatest demand and success.

yeah, there were a lot of those. (yes, some older stars went over between the perestoika and the fall but I think we can agree that things had already started to change from Tarasovs days)

During the 2009-10 season there were 32 Russian players in the NHL.After the fall of the Soviet Union, during the 1992-93 season there were 43 with a higher skill set that differentiated them from the NA players. Today the comparable overall difference in skill set has disappeared and and the number of Russians has dropped by almost 25 %. Data from www.nhl.com .

So you are trying to make a point that there are no differences between pre and post perestroika by comparing two post years.

nice.

Simply while the opportunities are greater outside Russia those with the skill set or r willingness to respond to the opportunity levels are not being produced.

not sure what you are trying to say but if it is that players coming out of Russia are less skilled now than before I think that last years Conn Smythe winner, last two years Selke winner, and last two Years Hart and Rocket Richard winner would like to disagree.

Or are you saying that pre perestroika players were more skilled than these NHL-award-winners. Because that would rhyme badly with what you said about these players skillevel in the past.

As for your questions, rhetorical or otherwise. Salaries are much greater in the NHL today, then they were in 1992-93.

but the difference is that the relative salary differences for star players when comparing NHL and KHL are much smaller now.

and still not sure why comparing 92-93 to anything?

The NHLPA existed long before 1992-93 and still exists today.

yes it did. I guess that one reason to the fact that these pay differences has existed.

The KHL factor. Haven for the post NHL career - Fedorov, lazy, unmotivated - Yashin, Zherdev, average AHL - Valentenko with a few that leverage being Russian into higher salaries in Russia - Perezhogin, Emelin, Korneev. Also the KHL does not have a KHLPA or equivalent see - first aid issues at KHL arenas.

yes, this explains the lower numbers of Russians in NHL.

The players are still without power in the KHL. Yet while the dollars are more attractive, the hockey skills have basically disappeared as has the motivation. The KHL now relies on fringe former NHL players to fill their rosters. So while the salaries may be higher and the opportunities greater the production of players capable of responding to both the opportunities and demand has fallen drastically behind mainly because the foundation that produced the players that were NHL caliber in the early 1990's did not stand the test of time.

I think I already answered this. see award winners and higher relative salary for stars.

As for your bonus question Are you aware that the definition of a society is based on differences? No differences and we are all effectively one society.

yes. which proves my point, not yours.

could you now answer this:

if the answers are: yes, much higher, and: yes, much much greater, do you think this would affect how you could form a system to the greatest advantage before and after these differences?

and please note that I am meaning differences pre/post perestroika.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Your Points

Cuba is still a one-party communist/socialist state. Russia is not. Useless comparison.



yeah, there were a lot of those. (yes, some older stars went over between the perestoika and the fall but I think we can agree that things had already started to change from Tarasovs days)



So you are trying to make a point that there are no differences between pre and post perestroika by comparing two post years.

nice.



not sure what you are trying to say but if it is that players coming out of Russia are less skilled now than before I think that last years Conn Smythe winner, last two years Selke winner, and last two Years Hart and Rocket Richard winner would like to disagree.

Or are you saying that pre perestroika players were more skilled than these NHL-award-winners. Because that would rhyme badly with what you said about these players skillevel in the past.



but the difference is that the relative salary differences for star players when comparing NHL and KHL are much smaller now.

and still not sure why comparing 92-93 to anything?



yes it did. I guess that one reason to the fact that these pay differences has existed.



yes, this explains the lower numbers of Russians in NHL.



I think I already answered this. see award winners and higher relative salary for stars.



yes. which proves my point, not yours.

could you now answer this:



and please note that I am meaning differences pre/post perestroika.

Please stop with the cheap "we can agree" - represent your point and I will represent mine.

The baseball coaching methodology in Cuba traces its roots to the pre Castro era, in fact Fidel Castro learned baseball - he was an amateur pitcher. Proper sports methodology survives social and political change.

Older stars like Bure, Mogilny, Fedorov plus the best junior players? The cream of the young stars came over in the pre/post perestroika era. Try factual correctness.

That you admit to changes from Tarasov's era is evidence suggesting that his techniques and methodology were limited by time and circumstance and were not transferable beyond these limitations.Just as Tikhonov's techniques and methodology which basically built on Tarasov's were limited by time and circumstance.

The elite will always be extremely skilled regardless of provenance.Also they will be the highest compensated nor will they need the KHL. Ovechkin, Malkin and the other elite Russians play in the NHL and do not need the KHL.If the KHL reaches the level where they can compete salary wise for Ovechkin , Malkin and other NHL stars then you might have a point. Until then the KHL is welcome to overpay for the lazy, pedestrian and over aged talent.

The skill level of the lower end players is the true measure. Take the recent Olympics. The skill level of the bottom third of the Russian team was nowhere near the skill level of the bottom third of the Soviet National teams from the Soviet Union days. Where did the teaching of skills go? Why was the methodology and the techniques favoured by T & T replaced by methodology and techniques that strangely represent poor NA junior methodology and techniques?

 

[jkrx]

Please stop with the cheap "we can agree" - represent your point and I will represent mine.

The baseball coaching methodology in Cuba traces its roots to the pre Castro era, in fact Fidel Castro learned baseball - he was an amateur pitcher. Proper sports methodology survives social and political change.

Older stars like Bure, Mogilny, Fedorov plus the best junior players? The cream of the young stars came over in the pre/post perestroika era. Try factual correctness.

That you admit to changes from Tarasov's era is evidence suggesting that his techniques and methodology were limited by time and circumstance and were not transferable beyond these limitations.Just as Tikhonov's techniques and methodology which basically built on Tarasov's were limited by time and circumstance.

The elite will always be extremely skilled regardless of provenance.Also they will be the highest compensated nor will they need the KHL. Ovechkin, Malkin and the other elite Russians play in the NHL and do not need the KHL.If the KHL reaches the level where they can compete salary wise for Ovechkin , Malkin and other NHL stars then you might have a point. Until then the KHL is welcome to overpay for the lazy, pedestrian and over aged talent.

The skill level of the lower end players is the true measure. Take the recent Olympics. The skill level of the bottom third of the Russian team was nowhere near the skill level of the bottom third of the Soviet National teams from the Soviet Union days. Where did the teaching of skills go? Why was the methodology and the techniques favoured by T & T replaced by methodology and techniques that strangely represent poor NA junior methodology and techniques?

The competence of the old Soviet teams were based on army discipline. They took the best players all over the Soviet union and made "soldiers" out of them. If you take a look on how big the soviet union were compared to Russia it would make sense that Soviet had a much more larger player pool to choose from. Back then players were in a permanent training camp for 11 months. I wouldn't exactly say that Tikhonov could upheld this after the fall of Soviet. He actually said himself that once Soviet fell he could take on a more relaxed attitude towards the players.

Tihkonov wasn't "fired" because he were a bad coach either. He was let go because players who had to train in those army camps dissaproved and that group of players refused to play under him in '96 which led to that Russia had to listen to them. Basically the same thing that happened to Bowman in Pittsburgh.

Tihkonov was hated because he were an general in the army that took players from their families.

If soviet still existed the 2010 olympics russian team would've included players like Fedotenko, Ponikarovski, Skrastins, Zubrus, Antropov, Salei, Kostisyn bros. amongst others.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Short Version

The competence of the old Soviet teams were based on army discipline. They took the best players all over the Soviet union and made "soldiers" out of them. If you take a look on how big the soviet union were compared to Russia it would make sense that Soviet had a much more larger player pool to choose from. Back then players were in a permanent training camp for 11 months. I wouldn't exactly say that Tikhonov could upheld this after the fall of Soviet. He actually said himself that once Soviet fell he could take on a more relaxed attitude towards the players.

Tihkonov wasn't "fired" because he were a bad coach either. He was let go because players who had to train in those army camps dissaproved and that group of players refused to play under him in '96 which led to that Russia had to listen to them. Basically the same thing that happened to Bowman in Pittsburgh.

Tihkonov was hated because he were an general in the army that took players from their families.

Short version. Tikhonov's approach was a function of time and circumstance. The methodology and techniques were not sufficiently strong to stand alone or withstand the test of time.

Like Tikhonov, Bowman was fired but was quickly hired in Detroit and produced another near dynasty team which was passed on to his successors because his methodology and techniques had and continue(see Chicago) to withstand the test of time.

 

[lazerbullet]

Russia has still plenty of old school coaches. The major problem is that the best talent ended up cherry-picking in Washington, Atlanta, etc. Under some no-system coaches, I must add.

Tarasov and Tikhonov would have shipped those cherry-picking talents to Siberia. See Kharlamov.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Conversely

Russia has still plenty of old school coaches. The major problem is that the best talent ended up cherry-picking in Washington, Atlanta, etc. Under some no-system coaches, I must add.

Tarasov and Tikhonov would have shipped those cherry-picking talents to Siberia. See Kharlamov.

Conversely Malkin adapted but when confronted with demanding coaches who insisted on players working towards a complete game,others went home - Filiatov, Kabanov, Zherdev, Yashin, to name a few.

Having old school coaches is one thing, having the ability and foresight to take their best methods and techniques while modifying them to present situations is a different challenge.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

That you admit to changes from Tarasov's era is evidence suggesting that his techniques and methodology were limited by time and circumstance and were not transferable beyond these limitations.Just as Tikhonov's techniques and methodology which basically built on Tarasov's were limited by time and circumstance.

Weren't many of Tarasov's and Tikhonov's techniques and methodologies adopted by several NA coaches (Bowman in particular) and have now been fully integrated into NA hockey? Doesn't that show that they were transferable beyond the limitations you guys speak of?

 

[jkrx]

Short version. Tikhonov's approach was a function of time and circumstance. The methodology and techniques were not sufficiently strong to stand alone or withstand the test of time.

Like Tikhonov, Bowman was fired but was quickly hired in Detroit and produced another near dynasty team which was passed on to his successors because his methodology and techniques had and continue(see Chicago) to withstand the test of time.

Yes but Tikhonovs system were based on an army system that didnt exist anymore. Tikhonov retired thats why he doesnt coach anymore, he became a lobbyest to get the government to spend more money on the russian teams instead.

Tikhonovs methodology and techniques still lives in russian hockey but can't be applied at full as they are too hard and harsh on todays primadonna athletes. They are still coached on Tarasovs/Tikhonovs system though.

If methodology and technique is a big factor then surely the swedish coaches behind left wing lock should get recognition as they invented it (to counter the soviets in the 70s) and its used with great success today.

 

[lazerbullet]

Conversely Malkin adapted but when confronted with demanding coaches who insisted on players working towards a complete game,others went home - Filiatov, Kabanov, Zherdev, Yashin, to name a few.

Having old school coaches is one thing, having the ability and foresight to take their best methods and techniques while modifying them to present situations is a different challenge.

Malkin hasn't improved his two-way game.
Filatov left, because he wasn't playing, not because Hitch wanted defense. Kid can play a two-way game, he just needs time to bulk up.
Kabanov... Just an immature kid. His problems has nothing to do with working towards a complete game. Plus, he is way too young. There is a Prospects section.
Zherdev left for money. Many teams would welcome him... for a reasonable price.
Yashin left for money. Has nothing to do with not adapting bs...

So nobody actually left, because they were confronted with demanding coaches who insisted on players working towards a complete game.

 

[therealkoho]

Weren't many of Tarasov's and Tikhonov's techniques and methodologies adopted by several NA coaches (Bowman in particular) and have now been fully integrated into NA hockey? Doesn't that show that they were transferable beyond the limitations you guys speak of?

Indeed they were Johnny, Tikhonov while he did develop some on ice strategies of his own they were variations of what Tarasov intiially developed.

We still see some of these strategies in the NA game today as I pointed out earlier and precisely why Tarasov belongs in that top 10 list.

In addendum to the above arguement:

Regardless, of what was going on in Russia after the fall of the soviet empire really has nothing to do with Tarasov's legacy, The arguement about sustainability and the old soviet structure is frivolous and bears absolutely no weight on this coaches place in history. Simply put his theories, off ice trainng methods and strategies revolutionized the game and that is what really counts.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Buzz Words

Weren't many of Tarasov's and Tikhonov's techniques and methodologies adopted by several NA coaches (Bowman in particular) and have now been fully integrated into NA hockey? Doesn't that show that they were transferable beyond the limitations you guys speak of?

So buzz words replace substance. Basically All > many > some > 1.

When Bowman was coaching in the MMJHL he adapted tactics from others coaches when it came to playing certain teams and in certain arenas. Does not make these long forgotten coaches great.

List the specific tactics that were adapted from T & T and we'll see how well they have survived the test of time. Like some of the things Fred Shero did - getting an advantage when playing with scrambled lines were limited to the team he coached and worked until a counter move was shown.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Making Progress

Yes but Tikhonovs system were based on an army system that didnt exist anymore. Tikhonov retired thats why he doesnt coach anymore, he became a lobbyest to get the government to spend more money on the russian teams instead.

Tikhonovs methodology and techniques still lives in russian hockey but can't be applied at full as they are too hard and harsh on todays primadonna athletes. They are still coached on Tarasovs/Tikhonovs system though.

If methodology and technique is a big factor then surely the swedish coaches behind left wing lock should get recognition as they invented it (to counter the soviets in the 70s) and its used with great success today.

Making progress.American football strategies and methodology may be traced back to the great Army and Navy teams. Blocking schemes, formations, defensive alignments. These basics survived the various social and football rule changes. Football going from a one-platoon game to unlimited substitution.

Your Left Wing lock analogy is very valid and raises the following. It obviously countered the Soviet game yet T & T were not able to counter the Left Wing lock so our perception of Soviet coaching and Swedish coaching should be reviewed from the standpoint that the Soviet's may not have been as good as given credit and the Swedes much better.

Also the ability of the Swedes to produce quality defensemen - the two Salmings, Sjoberg, Lidstrom down to Hedman amongst others goes to my point that certain basics withstand the test of time.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Interesting..........

Malkin hasn't improved his two-way game.
Filatov left, because he wasn't playing, not because Hitch wanted defense. Kid can play a two-way game, he just needs time to bulk up.
Kabanov... Just an immature kid. His problems has nothing to do with working towards a complete game. Plus, he is way too young. There is a Prospects section.
Zherdev left for money. Many teams would welcome him... for a reasonable price.
Yashin left for money. Has nothing to do with not adapting bs...

So nobody actually left, because they were confronted with demanding coaches who insisted on players working towards a complete game.

Filiatov wasn't playing because he was a defensive liability.

NHL teams have a very good idea now what players like Zherdev and Yashin are worth. Their departure - spin it whatever way you like is not a difference maker to anyone. Two glasses of water removed from the ocean.

 

[jkrx]

Making progress.American football strategies and methodology may be traced back to the great Army and Navy teams. Blocking schemes, formations, defensive alignments. These basics survived the various social and football rule changes. Football going from a one-platoon game to unlimited substitution.

Your Left Wing lock analogy is very valid and raises the following. It obviously countered the Soviet game yet T & T were not able to counter the Left Wing lock so our perception of Soviet coaching and Swedish coaching should be reviewed from the standpoint that the Soviet's may not have been as good as given credit and the Swedes much better.

Also the ability of the Swedes to produce quality defensemen - the two Salmings, Sjoberg, Lidstrom down to Hedman amongst others goes to my point that certain basics withstand the test of time.

Though Soviets coaching style havent changed much since Tarasov (except maybe natural adaption to other teams strategies). All russian coaches still have some well-read books about Tarasovs coaching philosofies.

Swedish coaches developed the defensive side of the game which later were adopted by Jaques Lemaire and Bowman (with Burns, I think it was, stating Canada invented the tactics ).

 

[Canadiens1958]

Dr. Bill Orban

Indeed they were Johnny, Tikhonov while he did develop some on ice strategies of his own they were variations of what Tarasov intiially developed.

We still see some of these strategies in the NA game today as I pointed out earlier and precisely why Tarasov belongs in that top 10 list.

In addendum to the above arguement:

Regardless, of what was going on in Russia after the fall of the soviet empire really has nothing to do with Tarasov's legacy, The arguement about sustainability and the old soviet structure is frivolous and bears absolutely no weight on this coaches place in history. Simply put his theories, off ice trainng methods and strategies revolutionized the game and that is what really counts.

Off ice training methods = an intensified adaptation and over zealous application of Dr. Bill Orban's 5BX plan. Orban was a Canadian.

Most of Tarasov's adapted theories, strategies go back to the pre WWI Czech, coached by a Canadian Mike Buchna.

http://www.trailhistory.com/monument.php?action=display&id=8

 

[jkrx]

Off ice training methods = an intensified adaptation and over zealous application of Dr. Bill Orban's 5BX plan. Orban was a Canadian.

Most of Tarasov's adapted theories, strategies go back to the pre WWI Czech, coached by a Canadian Mike Buchna.

http://www.trailhistory.com/monument.php?action=display&id=8

Yes, thats another coach left off the top10 list. But you know euros must accomplish something incredible to get the recognition they deserve.

 

[therealkoho]

Off ice training methods = an intensified adaptation and over zealous application of Dr. Bill Orban's 5BX plan. Orban was a Canadian.

Most of Tarasov's adapted theories, strategies go back to the pre WWI Czech, coached by a Canadian Mike Buchna.

http://www.trailhistory.com/monument.php?action=display&id=8

while thats all fine and dandy and btw thanks for the history(something i didn't know), the fact of the matter is those methods were never adopted by the NHL nor integrated into the NA game until after the 72 series.

Remember Esposito's line about training camp? The russians were expected to train 11 months of the year, kind of like NHL players do now.

While Blake, Imlach, Abel et al all used some form of a left wing lock and a box on the PK, that was as formidable as on ice strategy got, unless of course the shadow is more to your taste, you know assigning a guy to follow one of the stars around.

Tarasov used rotating boxes on the kill to pressure the point, developed what is now known as the trap to protect leads and had 4 or 5 differeing looks to his PPs as to make them difficult to defend.

I remember watching the 68 Olympics and thinking that the Russians must be cheating somehow because what they were doing was something so different from the hockey I was not only watching but that I was also learning and playing. My Peewee team that year went to the provincials finishing 3rd and missing Quebec.

Those russian in the 7 game play down outscored the opposition 48 to 10 and went 6-1. Losing their only game to the runner up Czechs by a score of 5-4.

then came the 72 series and Soviet hockey was no longer a boutique sport, it beat the best the NHL had to offer with the exception of Hull.

No less than Scott Bowman was so impressed he asked the next year to go to the Soviet Union to study with Tarasov, those Habs teams of the late 70's were the fruit of that study and the game was changed forever