Soviet players in top 10 of all time- do they belong there?

[reckoning]

Russia has produced arguably 3 of the top 5 'young' forwards in the league (Kovalchuk, Ovechkin, Malkin).

You`re calling a guy who hasn`t even played in the NHL yet one of the top 5 young forwards in the league?

 

[Marcus-74]

at it's worst the Canada cup was a higher end tournament then the Worlds were in those days,even today it is.Those 2 events are'nt comparable and it does'nt matter if you are a fan of Soviet or NHL hockey.The Canada cup (and todays modern world cup) was/is a much better event in top end quality. The old world championships were'nt much of a test for the old Soviet squads,they were going to win and win rather easily and everyone knows why,let's be honest.

In that sense,why calling them a joke may be a little harsh using them as a great basis of argument is.It was just an uneven tournament with the name world championships and we all know that.


We can talk about who we think the best players are but using the World championships in those days to settle aything is as weak an argument as your are going to make in favour of one over the other. You just have to look at Russia's results in that thing since the break-up of the Soviet Union to see that.

I'd look at their Soviet league stats and results moreso then the old world's myself.I'll give the World championships in those days SOME weight but not overly so.At least it's a better gauge then trying to tell how good Soviet players were from the Olympics back then.I don't know how you could tell anything from that,that was indeed a JOKE.

P.S: makarov and fetisov never dominated the nhl when they were here,why do you think that? The best you can say about them was that Makarov won the calder trophy and as well he should have,he was a great player who was 30 years old at the time.

but their overall careers here were nothing special.If they had have came here in their 20's then yes,it maybe/probably would have.

Okay, apparently there was something wrong with my English? I meant that: Have you ever seen a 30-year old rookie dominate NHL? No, Makarov and Fetisov didn´t do that and nobody has done it. I wonder if even Gretzky and Lemieux would have done it? (maybe). But anyway, I think it´s unfair to use 30-year old rookies as an evidence "hey look, these guys were supposed to be great and they couldn´t quite make it"

I don´t think Peter Stastny was ever the top Czechoslovakian forward in his national team (probably would have been at some point had he stayed) and yet he had a brilliant NHL career. That proves something to me...

And let´s look at the first Canada Cup: how many great teams were there? Two. Canada and Czechoslovakia. Then there was greatly weakened Soviet Union and Sweden. And you don´t even need to mention USA or specially Finland(a big sorry goes to my dear countrymen!). That really isn´t much different from the WCs of the early ´70s. Two very good teams (SU and Czechs), one decent (Sweden) and rest were there just to keep ´em company!

And come to think of it, there were about four or five genuinely good NHL teams throughout the seventies; Habs, Boston, Philly(yuck!), Sabres and Rangers (first half of the decade only!). And Islanders was beginning to emerge in the later years. Then there were lots of mediocre and crappy teams. I certainly don´t question that NHL was the best league (duh!), but it didn´t seem to be that competetive for Montreal, either...

 

[espo*]

Okay, apparently there was something wrong with my English? I meant that: Have you ever seen a 30-year old rookie dominate NHL? No, Makarov and Fetisov didn´t do that and nobody has done it. I wonder if even Gretzky and Lemieux would have done it? (maybe). But anyway, I think it´s unfair to use 30-year old rookies as an evidence "hey look, these guys were supposed to be great and they couldn´t quite make it"

I don´t think Peter Stastny was ever the top Czechoslovakian forward in his national team (probably would have been at some point had he stayed) and yet he had a brilliant NHL career. That proves something to me...

And let´s look at the first Canada Cup: how many great teams were there? Two. Canada and Czechoslovakia. Then there was greatly weakened Soviet Union and Sweden. And you don´t even need to mention USA or specially Finland(a big sorry goes to my dear countrymen!). That really isn´t much different from the WCs of the early ´70s. Two very good teams (SU and Czechs), one decent (Sweden) and rest were there just to keep ´em company!

And come to think of it, there were about four or five genuinely good NHL teams throughout the seventies; Habs, Boston, Philly(yuck!), Sabres and Rangers (first half of the decade only!). And Islanders was beginning to emerge in the later years. Then there were lots of mediocre and crappy teams. I certainly don´t question that NHL was the best league (duh!), but it didn´t seem to be that competetive for Montreal, either...

The Soviet union sent weak teams to the Canada cup? Maybe the 76 cup(and that's nobodys fault but theirs,they had a choice) but after that at least until 91 they had great teams at that event,their best!! And i should know because i watched them,they were'nt weakened in any way!!!

Hell,they wiped the floor with us in 81!!!

You can't be serious.

if you can name me three players that were left off those teams(81,84,87),hell,even one,that would have made those teams so much better then the ones they sent i'll never say another word about Soviet teams and their greatness on here.

I'll come on here and admit they were Gods with no peer among mortal men.

Now at the old worlds you had two very good teams,a severely weakened and without hope put together at the last minute rag tag of nhl pros for Canada,and the rest to keep them company.It's not even close.Even an under strentgh Soviet Squad in 76 is better then some guys thrown together at the last minute to get on a plane and play on the big rinks in Europe.

No-one had a chance against the Soviets in that reality.It was a joke...really.

 

[Zine]

The Soviet union sent weak teams to the Canada cup? Maybe the 76 cup(and that's nobodys fault but theirs,they had a choice) but after that at least until 91 they had great teams at that event,their best!! And i should know because i watched them,they were'nt weakened in any way!!!

Hell,they wiped the floor with us in 81!!!

You can't be serious.

if you can name me three players that were left off those teams(81,84,87),hell,even one,that would have made those teams so much better then the ones they sent i'll never say another word about Soviet teams and their greatness on here.

I'll come on here and admit they were Gods with no peer among mortal men.

Now at the old worlds you had two very good teams,a severely weakened and without hope put together at the last minute rag tag of nhl pros for Canada,and the rest to keep them company.It's not even close.Even an under strentgh Soviet Squad in 76 is better then some guys thrown together at the last minute to get on a plane and play on the big rinks in Europe.

No-one had a chance against the Soviets in that reality.It was a joke...really.

1981- A whole bunch of players. It was a transition year between the generations. A bunch of the older guys could have done really well. Balderis refused to play also.

1984- Fetisov didn't play due to injury.

1987- Sergei Svetlov (Soviets best shut-down forward) was injured for the finals. His loss was significant considering the lack of depth at forward the '87 team had.

 

[Leo Naphta]

No-one had a chance against the Soviets in that reality.It was a joke...really.

No one?

Poland beat them 6-4 in 1976.

Czechoslovakia managed to steal a couple of World Championships. As did Sweden once too.

Seriously though. The games between Czechoslovakia and Soviet was usually VERY good. And the political situation did nothing to diminish their importance to the players.

 

[espo*]

1981- A whole bunch of players. It was a transition year between the generations. A bunch of the older guys could have done really well. Balderis refused to play also.

1984- Fetisov didn't play due to injury.

1987- Sergei Svetlov (Soviets best shut-down forward) was injured for the finals. His loss was significant considering the lack of depth at forward the '87 team had.

Whew,thank God i don't have to do it.Fetisov was their best d-man but great teams like that don't lose tourneys over it all the time,Canada did'nt lose 72 because of no Orr,not to mention other guys.

Svetlov? a shut down forward being so critical? he's the reason they did'nt destroy Canada? Cmon

Numerous guys in 81? they won going away!! Big deal.

Sorry,you'll have to try again.And here i thought i was going to be learning about some mythtical griffin type players whose mere absence of one second of ice time would mean the difference between being unbeatable and being just second rate.You gave me a top d-man in one year,a shut down forward in another and i don't know how many guys (or how great they even were) in a tournament they won anyway.

This is normal stuff.Next i'll be hearing (actually i already have before) that the U.S lost the 02 olympics because Keith Tzachuk could'nt play more then a few shifts in the Gold medal game.

It's sucks to lose a player here and there but it happens to all teams.Sometimes you can win and sometimes you can't.They had Fetisov (minus the brick wall Svetlov) in 87 and lost.They were great teams and great players but they could lose.They are'nt and were'nt the unbeatable Gods some people make them out to be.Can't people understand there isn't some great excuse every time they could'nt take home the mail against stiff competition?.And i mean REAL competition,not the annual come and play and be 90% assuredof taking home top prize World championships.

they of course were a great team,just don't over-rate them.

let's have fans from both sides face facts.....when it came to the best of Canada going against the best of the Soviet Union,there was'nt much to choose from.Flipping a coin basically.

 

[espo*]

No one?

Poland beat them 6-4 in 1976.

Czechoslovakia managed to steal a couple of World Championships. As did Sweden once too.

Seriously though. The games between Czechoslovakia and Soviet was usually VERY good. And the political situation did nothing to diminish their importance to the players.

I hear you but let's face it....................it was basically a two horse race(with one horse being stronger then the other) at that time between the Soviet Union and the Czechs and we all know why. It's time for their fans (just one for God's sake) to admit it.

The second they had to deal with putting teams together like Canada and others did then for that thing their results changed drastically,Results that remain to this day.The Canada/world cup was and is the more accurate barometer of teams strentghs and only a fool would'nt know that.They still did well at them showing they were sometimes not quite as good as Canada or sometimes better then Canada.Why bother with the foolish argument of the worlds in this day and age?........everyone does and did know why their dominance was so complete at that thing.

It's wasted breath.

 

[Zine]

Whew,thank God i don't have to do it.Fetisov was their best d-man but great teams like that don't lose tourneys over it all the time,Canada did'nt lose 72 because of no Orr,not to mention other guys.

Svetlov? a shut down forward being so critical? he's the reason they did'nt destroy Canada? Cmon

Numerous guys in 81? they won going away!! Big deal.

Sorry,you'll have to try again.And here i thought i was going to be learning about some mythtical griffin type players whose mere absence of one second of ice time would mean the difference between being unbeatable and being just second rate.You gave me a top d-man in one year,a shut down forward in another and i don't know how many guys (or how great they even were) in a tournament they won anyway.

This is normal stuff.Next i'll be hearing (actually i already have before) that the U.S lost the 02 olympics because Keith Tzachuk could'nt play more then a few shifts in the Gold medal game.

It's sucks to lose a player here and there but it happens to all teams.Sometimes you can win and sometimes you can't.They had Fetisov (minus the brick wall Svetlov) in 87 and lost.They were great teams and great players but they could lose.They are'nt and were'nt the unbeatable Gods some people make them out to be.Can't people understand there isn't some great excuse every time they could'nt take home the mail against stiff competition?.And i mean REAL competition,not the annual come and play and be 90% assuredof taking home top prize World championships.

they of course were a great team,just don't over-rate them.

let's have fans from both sides face facts.....when it came to the best of Canada going against the best of the Soviet Union,there was'nt much to choose from.Flipping a coin basically.

Nobody said anything about the Soviets being “unbeatable Godsâ€, and I don’t think anyone here is actually insinuating that. You’re looking too much into it.

Likewise, nobody said anything about the Soviets sending weakened teams to the Canada Cup (apart from ’76); you were the only one to say that also.

However, would the inclusion of Svetlov and, especially, Fetisov have changed those outcomes? Perhaps…especially considering Canada won by only the slightest margins. But I’m sure Canada can say the same thing with players they could have been missing. I, personally, don’t put too much weight into the CC because it was a tourney set up for Canada to win. But that’s for another time.
It’s a mute point. Fact is, both teams could beat one another on any given night which proves that the Soviets were just as good as anything the NHL had to offer –-- which is what this thread is about.

 

[Marcus-74]

And let´s look at the first Canada Cup: how many great teams were there? Two. Canada and Czechoslovakia. Then there was greatly weakened Soviet Union and Sweden. And you don´t even need to mention USA or specially Finland(a big sorry goes to my dear countrymen!). That really isn´t much different from the WCs of the early ´70s. Two very good teams (SU and Czechs), one decent (Sweden) and rest were there just to keep ´em company!

There´s the key word underlined just for you, Mr. Cyclops! I was talking about the first Canada Cup. That is the Canada Cup played in ´76. Understand? No? Yes?

 

[raleh]

Kharlamov might crack the top ten skaters of all time. Being a left wing really helps him because I would say that Hull is the only one that was clearly better than him. I would have a hard time choosing him over Lindsay too, but that's just me and could be argued. The following players can not be argued against IMO;

Orr
Gretzky
Howe
Lemieux
Shore
Rocket
Harvey
Hull

That's eight that were clearly better and would have dominated in any league in any era. After those eight I think there can be cases made for a whole bunch of players, Kharlamov being one of them. I think he was the best player on the ice before he was injured in the summit series, but he was not nearly as dominant as Orr would have been had he been there.

 

[Dolemite]

I am a freelance journalist and recently I compiled a list of top 10 players ever to play a game of hockey for some hockey fans.

The list contains these players - Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Roy, Howe, P.Esposito, Sawchuk, Bourque, Beliveau, Richard. (Purposedly I don´t present the standings, because this would lead to nowhere).

But I was confronted with idea that the list of Top 10 should contain players from Soviet Union like Tretjak, Kharlamov, Makarov, Fetisov or Larionov.

Do you believe any of Soviet players is eligible to crack the Top 10 of all-time?

Is your list the best NHL players of all time or the best Hockey players of all time? If it's the best hockey players of all time Tretjak must be included...even over Roy.

Here, read this:

http://www.legendsofhockey.net:8080...e=Player&page=bio&list=ByPosition&pos=G#photo

 

[espo*]

There´s the key word underlined just for you, Mr. Cyclops! I was talking about the first Canada Cup. That is the Canada Cup played in ´76. Understand? No? Yes?

Point taken.So you do admit the other years you sent your best teams and won or lost fair and square?

and we have an understanding that comparing the worlds and Canada cups are not a good comparison,in that the canada cups were a much better test of strentgh then the worlds.We won't have to see anymore of that argument right?

 

[espo*]

Nobody said anything about the Soviets being “unbeatable Godsâ€, and I don’t think anyone here is actually insinuating that. You’re looking too much into it.

Likewise, nobody said anything about the Soviets sending weakened teams to the Canada Cup (apart from ’76); you were the only one to say that also.

However, would the inclusion of Svetlov and, especially, Fetisov have changed those outcomes? Perhaps…especially considering Canada won by only the slightest margins. But I’m sure Canada can say the same thing with players they could have been missing. I, personally, don’t put too much weight into the CC because it was a tourney set up for Canada to win. But that’s for another time.
It’s a mute point. Fact is, both teams could beat one another on any given night which proves that the Soviets were just as good as anything the NHL had to offer –-- which is what this thread is about.

And if you don't put much weight into the CC's then i assume you also put even less weight into the world Championships since that was a tournament set up for the Soviet Union to win.At the very least the Canada cup allowed each team to have their best players should they choose to bring them. Sometimes they won,sometimes they were beaten by a better Canadian squad.At the worlds they just won all the time except for a few blips.

maybe we can make a thread arguing the relative merits of Canada's wins in the canada cups and the Soviets wins at the worlds and olympics?.

I'm confident any reasonable fan will consider the Canada cup the more legitimate tournament. There,Canada and the Soviet Union pretty much went neck and neck all the time showing they were the two top nations.At the worlds it was just Soviet domination.I think fans of the soviet union have to enjoy their victories at the best international competition in the world and suck it up for their defeats. The worlds results can just be chucked into the garbage bin,no need to gloat about taking candy from a baby.

 

[Ola]

Why get into a thread like this. BTW gooing with the method you guys use, nobody ever will crack a top 10. It where easier to win things when there only where 6 teams...

If anyone is gooing to make a legitimate top 10 list, at the very least 20% of the players should be russians. I mean in 87' I saw the best Russians play even against a canadian team with three players on many posters top 10 list. Russia have always been a good hockey nation, its not reasonable to expect that 20% of the best players all times haven't been russians.

 

[espo*]

Why get into a thread like this. BTW gooing with the method you guys use, nobody ever will crack a top 10. It where easier to win things when there only where 6 teams...

If anyone is gooing to make a legitimate top 10 list, at the very least 20% of the players should be russians. I mean in 87' I saw the best Russians play even against a canadian team with three players on many posters top 10 list. Russia have always been a good hockey nation, its not reasonable to expect that 20% of the best players all times haven't been russians.

LOL......i know.

I just want one Russian fan to say the their dominance at the worlds and olympics was no big deal.I've never heard one guy admit to it.

It's my lifes dream to have one fess up and call a spade a spade. I think i'm getting closer.Maybe just one more push!!

I know how good their teams and players were but i know that from watching them play real competitions against the best like the Canada cup,not the farce World Championships. I don't know why they try to discount the Canada cups,it's the only place where they truly showed how formidable they really were.

 

[Zine]

LOL......i know.

I just want one Russian fan to say the their dominance at the worlds and olympics was no big deal.I've never heard one guy admit to it.

It's my lifes dream to have one fess up and call a spade a spade. I think i'm getting closer.Maybe just one more push!!

I know how good their teams and players were but i know that from watching them play real competitions against the best like the Canada cup,not the farce World Championships. I don't know why they try to discount the Canada cups,it's the only place where they truly showed how formidable they really were.

How were the WC set up for the Soviets to win? They were neutral in every way. The CC was played on Canadian ice, in front of Canadian fans, with Canadian refs, etc. Talk about fighting an uphill battle for an opposing team.

Thing is, since there were so few Europeans playing in the NHL at the time, the World Championships were, essentially, the Canada Cup minus Canada -- at least in terms of top end talent. Sure, it wasn't quite at the level of the CC but certainly wasn't 'a farce' as you claim them to be.

As Marcus-74 sort of pointed out......because the Soviets sent a sub-par squad in '76, Canada got a good look at what the Soviets faced every year at the WC. It was sort of like Canada replacing the Soviets for a WC.
Of course Canada won (much like the Soviets did) but I wouldn't say they had a meaningless cakewalk through the tourney, or call it 'no big deal'. The '76 CC is still one of the most celebrated Canadian victories. In fact, they were shut out by the Czechs. How many times were the Soviets shut out in the WC?

 

[XploD]

LOL......i know.

I just want one Russian fan to say the their dominance at the worlds and olympics was no big deal.I've never heard one guy admit to it.

Why wasn't it a big deal? There are OTHER countries outside Canada you know. Maybe the Canadians didn't bring their best but every other country did.

 

[Dolemite]

Why get into a thread like this. BTW gooing with the method you guys use, nobody ever will crack a top 10. It where easier to win things when there only where 6 teams...

If anyone is gooing to make a legitimate top 10 list, at the very least 20% of the players should be russians. I mean in 87' I saw the best Russians play even against a canadian team with three players on many posters top 10 list. Russia have always been a good hockey nation, its not reasonable to expect that 20% of the best players all times haven't been russians.

But that's the question isn't it? Are the individual russians from that era, that may or may not make the list, as good as or better than the team they came from.

I'm sure with any list that is made there will always be players that people will say are missing from the list both North American and European.

 

[espo*]

Why wasn't it a big deal? There are OTHER countries outside Canada you know. Maybe the Canadians didn't bring their best but every other country did.

What did that matter?. Back then the big 7 was really only the big 3 as has been said in this thread,the Czechs,Canada and the Soviets,the rest were in all due respects also rans.You take Canada (truly the Soviets best competition) out of the mix and what do you have?.................not much.The Canada cups were the only real test and i think you know that,you should anyway.

The only real way to test the Soviets greatness were those Canada cups,not the Worlds,that was almost a walk in the park was'nt it?.

Having said that,They graded out pretty good i'd say!! The Canada cups are an argument in their favour not an argument against.It's about the only true and valid way we have to judge the two sides.

They showed they were right there with Canada as the best hockey team on earth.Why put that down?

The worlds are a wash,the accomplishments there just are'nt that impressive,i'm sorry.

 

[pappyline]

Why get into a thread like this. BTW gooing with the method you guys use, nobody ever will crack a top 10. It where easier to win things when there only where 6 teams...

If anyone is gooing to make a legitimate top 10 list, at the very least 20% of the players should be russians. I mean in 87' I saw the best Russians play even against a canadian team with three players on many posters top 10 list. Russia have always been a good hockey nation, its not reasonable to expect that 20% of the best players all times haven't been russians.

What the Heck are you talking about? Canada is the hockey nation. Hockey was invented in Canada & has been THE major sport there since the 19th century. Until 1972 we kept our best 100+ players at home & sent amatuers to the world champion ships and still were competitive & won more often then not. Russia has really only been a legitimate hockey power since 72. Camada has been a hockey power since the 19th century & you are telling us that 20% pf the top players of all time are Russian?

 

[reckoning]

How were the WC set up for the Soviets to win? They were neutral in every way. The CC was played on Canadian ice, in front of Canadian fans, with Canadian refs, etc. Talk about fighting an uphill battle for an opposing team.

When was the last time the World Championships were played on Canadian ice? If home ice advantage diminishes Canada`s Canada Cup victories, then not having home ice diminishes the World Championships. You can`t have it both ways.

 

[Sens Rule]

Why get into a thread like this. BTW gooing with the method you guys use, nobody ever will crack a top 10. It where easier to win things when there only where 6 teams...

If anyone is gooing to make a legitimate top 10 list, at the very least 20% of the players should be russians. I mean in 87' I saw the best Russians play even against a canadian team with three players on many posters top 10 list. Russia have always been a good hockey nation, its not reasonable to expect that 20% of the best players all times haven't been russians.

I don't know about the percentage but the argument you are making has some merit. But not in the top 10. Maybe in a top 25 or top 50 or 100 list then many Soviet players should be on it. Top 10 is the elite of the elite and there is no reason that 2 Russians need to be in the top 10. I didn't watch Kharlomov but none of the big 5 of Fetisov, Kasatonov, Larianov, Makarov or Krutov deserve consideration to be in the top 10. Not that close either. All played in the NHL and did not dominate. They may have been in their 30's but they weren't in their late 30's. Fetisov was likely the best of the bunch and may be a top 10 D-Man ever but not a top 10 overall.

 

[espo*]

When was the last time the World Championships were played on Canadian ice? If home ice advantage diminishes Canada`s Canada Cup victories, then not having home ice diminishes the World Championships. You can`t have it both ways.

Hard to believe fans from there don't get it eh? Even with the advantages for Canada at the Canada cup (and the Soviets had those advantages just as much at the worlds,even more when you consider the competition from Canada's teams they had to face) The Canada cup was the REAL testing ground for the Soviet teams and it showed. No domination yet neck and neck with their equals. Again......that's still great,why bring the farceical worlds into it? It cheapens their argument,an argument they don't need to impress me and others anyway. It's their work in the only top level international competitions that impresses us and that sure as hell was'nt the world championships in those days.

sigh............has'nt happened yet. But i remain undaunted!! One of these days i'm going to get one to just snap and admit it.

 

[canucksfan]

And let´s look at the first Canada Cup: how many great teams were there? Two. Canada and Czechoslovakia. Then there was greatly weakened Soviet Union and Sweden. And you don´t even need to mention USA or specially Finland(a big sorry goes to my dear countrymen!). That really isn´t much different from the WCs of the early ´70s. Two very good teams (SU and Czechs), one decent (Sweden) and rest were there just to keep ´em company!

The Soviets did send a poor team to the 76' Canada Cup, however, it was their choice that they sent a poor team to that tournament. The Soviets could have sent their best team but they didn't. It's not like Canada in the World Championships or the Olympics where their best players weren't available.

 

[espo*]

The Soviets did send a poor team to the 76' Canada Cup, however, it was their choice that they sent a poor team to that tournament. The Soviets could have sent their best team but they didn't. It's not like Canada in the World Championships or the Olympics where their best players weren't available.

That brings me to another point.Was there any trepidation on the Soviet Unions part at that time that they would not be able to beat Canada at this time due to the power of the team Canada would bring and thus could fluff of their placing afterwards due to being able to say they did'nt have their best team? i don't remember the reasons (and i wonder if the party line given is the truth anyway)I'm sure they came up with a reason,if nothing else then to convince their fans exclusion of players was necessary at the time.

The Soviet regime in athletics did some strange things in those days to keep up appearances of superiority due to the political situation in those days .Would'nt surprise me that was the motive behind that move.If so,then you can't blame anyone for that,least of all Canada.They were invited to bring their best so theres no excuse and victory in that tournament can be looked upon by us with pride.Theres no honour in not accepting the challenge is there? and no honour for the fans in fluffing it off as not having their best team and penalizing Canada for it!!

I don't think they neglected to bring their best for the worlds and olympics (where they knew it would contain inferior Canadian squads) That tourney was made to be a stranglehold for them in every way.

Fishy stuff.But that's THEIR fishy stuff and not our problem as they had the same right and ability to bring their very best as anyone else.

Like i have been saying...................the Canada cups were the real test and i'm sure they know it.Admitting it seems to be the problem.

But we've all come to the conclusion that the Soviets were basically Canada's equals so i don't see why they would have to cling to it. We admit they had great teams,as good as ours. it's time for them to come clean,it's good for their soul!!