Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 15

[Canadiens1958]

Bill Durnan only played in the playoffs 6 times (as expected, his career was short). Of those 6 playoffs, 2 are what I would considered highly suspect performances. I wouldn't call that "outlier results."

To be fair to Durnan, nothing wrong at all with his other 4 playoffs, and he did win 2 Cups (albeit on a heavily favored team).

Suggest rereading the posts in question. Outlier was in reference to game #1 of the 1972 Summit Series, 1945 game semis game#5,
1947 SC Finals game#1 where one game skews GF/GA.from the expected outcome.

 

[Theokritos]

speaking about circumstantial evidence for Firsov, back in 2010 I met Morris Mott at an SIHR conference, and we talked a lot about his time with the team Canada amateurs of the late 60s who played against Firsov. And I asked him, would Firsov have starred in the NHL. He thought for a while, and then said, well I don't know if he would have starred, but he certainly could have played.

We would have to assume that he would have been a consistent first or second all-star team guy, consistent top ten scoring finishes or other substantial individual achievements in the NHL if he is to meet this list.

I want to challenge the notion that we have to assume Firsov would have excelled in the NHL in order to be worthy of this list. The rationale behind that notion is obvious enough and at first sight it appears entirely plausible. But my counter argument is this (and the following is a mere repetition of something I've written before):

As Fetisov's first coach in the NHL said in early 1990: We saw the Soviets could play well against NHL players, but whether they can play as well with NHL players is another question.

Why do we even take the NHL as the yardstick of quality? Now that's an easy one to answer: Because the NHL is and has historically been the best league in the world. But my follow-up question is where it should get interesting: Why is the NHL the best league in the world? What makes it so? To me this answer seems simple too: because the NHL has most of the best players in the world. The depth of talent and also the peak of talent dwarfs the other league in the world, past and present.

Now when you grow up as a fan of such an unipolar sport as hockey, where one single league has been the number one in the world as long as anybody can remember, it's only natural you also grow up with the implicit assumption that the way the game is played in the NHL is the definite way to play the game. But this, in my opinion, is a fallacy. The tactical blueprints and the fundamental ideas how to play the game as they are common in the NHL are just one out of several possible approaches that are not necessarily superior or inferior to each other. There could be (and in fact have been) alternative approaches outside of North America that work just as well on a tactical level. In fact the NHL could have it wrong tactically and still come out on top of the other leagues simply due to its superior talent pool. Mind you, that's not what I'm really assuming: For example, I'm not assuming Soviet-style possession hockey is inherently superior to traditional Canadian dump-and-chase hockey. But neither is traditional Canadian dump-and-chase hockey inherently superior to Soviet-style possession hockey. Both approaches can suck if not executed well. Both approaches can work if executed well. Neither is fundamentally right or wrong and neither is fundamentally better than the other. And yet, the difference between these approaches can be so massive that it is very difficult even for extremely talented players to switch from one game to the other.​

The fundamental differences between the Canadian approach and the Soviet approach when it comes to tactics and style of play are obvious. David Bauer already described them in 1967-1968:

"The two teams play different styles. For the professionals the main principle is to shoot, hammer the puck ahead and put pressure on the goaltender. The Soviet team focuses on buildup and puck possession. Both are good at what they're doing. (...) Only the Montreal Canadiens are able to combine those two styles. (... ) Each has their own qualities. It would be difficult for the players to play on the team of the opponent."​

That Bauer thought only the Canadiens with Beliveau, Pocket Rocket, an excellent supporting cast and some of the best coaching and management in hockey history were capable of combining the two styles isn't surprising. Scotty Bowman's Canadiens continued that tradition when they both outplayed CSKA Moscow and stopped the Broad Street Bullies.

The difference was persistent. In the 1960s knowledgeable Canadian observers thought the Soviets passed too much. And when the Soviets finally started to play in the NHL, Terry Crisp complained that Makarov would "backpass three times on a breakaway". The basic difference in the approaches didn't change. But something else did: The Summit Series caused many Canadian observers to re-evaluate their appreciation of the Soviet game. Did they pass too much? Or was Ken Dryden right when he said: "Just because they are doing it differently, it doesn't mean they are doing it wrong."

Harry Sinden was one of those who re-evaluated his views. After Game 1 he acknowledged that the best Soviet players like Kharlamov were more individually skilled than he had thought. Someone else who apparently did a re-evaluation was Scotty Bowman. In 1974 the Montreal Canadiens put Anatoly Firsov, the biggest star of the Soviets in the years prior to the Summit Series, on their negotiation list, asked him if he wanted to play for them (Firsov said yes) and wrote a letter to the Soviet Prime Minister to get Firsov released. And in 2010 Bowman called him the greatest Russian player he had seen.

Unfortunately it seems not everybody is capable of a re-evaluation.

 

[blogofmike]

The hangup with Firsov isn't with style of play, but quality of competition. It would be like counting Durnan's Allan Cup as a significant part of his case (which is not that far off, considering Allan Cup champions dominated international hockey until 1961.)

The field was largely composed of juniors and amateurs who were overmatched by his team. If you think Durnan had it easy in the mid 40s, why doesn't anyone look at Firsov's team tripling its opponents in GF:GA?

Perhaps I can be proven wrong by a study of his scoring by opponent, but he seems to be the type of guy who had his greatest tournament in 1968 where he scored a goal against every opponent - except in the one competitive game his team lost to Czechoslovakia.

Firsov would pile on 5 goals of his team's 25 goals in wins over the Americans and then score only 1 goal in 2 losses to Czechoslovakia in 1969.

I feel like backing Firsov at this point would be like pumping up Peter Forsberg as the greatest World Juniors performer in history - without anyone looking into where those points came from.​

 

[Canadiens1958]

Ah yes, re-evaluaton.The refuge of those who fail. Sounds more noble than the true motive, revisionism.

Let's look at a number of quotes by a proponent of re-evaluation:

The tactical blueprints and the fundamental ideas how to play the game as they are common in the NHL are just one out of several possible approaches that are not necessarily superior or inferior to each other.

Noble, liberal concession. There are after all over 100 proofs of the Pythagorean theory and countless routes to a destination in any city. No time limits on learning just learn.

Quickly removed from discussion:

There could be (and in fact have been) alternative approaches outside of North America that work just as well on a tactical level. In fact the NHL could have it wrong tactically and still come out on top of the other leagues simply due to its superior talent pool. Mind you, that's not what I'm really assuming: For example, I'm not assuming Soviet-style possession hockey is inherently superior to traditional Canadian dump-and-chase hockey. But neither is traditional Canadian dump-and-chase hockey inherently superior to Soviet-style possession hockey.

So tactics are secondary to results. Superior talent pool prevails. Avoiding the first key question. What defines a superior talent pool? By extension,what defines a superior talent?

Reduced to the basics, superior talent has the most extensive tool box is able to use all the tools to advantage in all hockey circumstances.

Were the Soviets and Anatoli Firsov always able and willing to use all the available hockey tools in their tool box? Did they have alternative tactics such as a more efficient Soviet version of the Dump and Chase? Neither had the necessay adaptability to use all the tools in the toolbox.

On the other hand NHL or North American greats - Harvey, Plante, Howe, Bobby Hull, etc past retirement age for Soviets adapted in minutes.True greats are capable of playing every style, execute all the tactics. Firsov did not even though he was given four seasons to adjust.

Then there are the cherry-picked quotes used to misrepresent NHL and NA Hockey:

The fundamental differences between the Canadian approach and the Soviet approach when it comes to tactics and style of play are obvious. David Bauer already described them in 1967-1968:

"The two teams play different styles. For the professionals the main principle is to shoot, hammer the puck ahead and put pressure on the goaltender. The Soviet team focuses on buildup and puck possession. Both are good at what they're doing. (...) Only the Montreal Canadiens are able to combine those two styles. (... ) Each has their own qualities. It would be difficult for the players to play on the team of the opponent."

That Bauer thought only the Canadiens with Beliveau, Pocket Rocket, an excellent supporting cast and some of the best coaching and management in hockey history were capable of combining the two styles isn't surprising. Scotty Bowman's Canadiens continued that tradition when they both outplayed CSKA Moscow and stopped the Broad Street Bullies.

Classic oversight. What about the strength of the opposition? Was the opposition that the Soviets were facing in a tournament or on tour nearly as strong as the opposition faced by the Canadiens in 1967-68 or 1975-76? It was not.

Why could the Canadiens defeat the Broad Street Bullies without leaving the ice? Complete tool box, the willingness and ability to use all the tools combined with preparedness.

And in 2010 Bowman called him the greatest Russian player he had seen. Bowman was referring to Anatoli Firsov.

Balanced against the 1964 quote by the same Scotty Bowman:

The Montreal Gazette - Recherche d'archives de Google Actualités

where Bowman claims that the Canadiens to be many goals better than the Soviets with Firsov in 1964. Somehow the 1964 quote was overlooked. Best on a weak team.

Re-evaluation is a noble quality, unnecessary once all the details are tabled for the initial evealuation.

 

[Batis]

Perhaps I can be proven wrong by a study of his scoring by opponent, but he seems to be the type of guy who had his greatest tournament in 1968 where he scored a goal against every opponent - except in the one competitive game his team lost to Czechoslovakia.

Firsov would pile on 5 goals of his team's 25 goals in wins over the Americans and then score only 1 goal in 2 losses to Czechoslovakia in 1969.
​

So the 3-2 win against Sweden in 1968 where Firsov had 2 goals and 1 assist was not a competitive game? I have watched that game multiple times and the Soviets would most likely have lost that game if not for Firsovs great performance.

Also the thing with Firsov is that his scoring achiviements only is one part of his greatness as far as I am concerned considering how great he was when it comes to keeping the opponents off the scoresheet. This is of course the reason why his R ON/R OFF numbers relative to his team seems to have been so outstanding most of the time. He was the greatest scorer on the team while he also managed to keep the opponents off the scoresheet most of the time. And as the R ON/ R OFF numbers from the available footage showed Firsov was also incredibly dominant relative to his teammates in the games against the top 2 opponents Czechoslovakia and Sweden. And in 4 out of those 6 available games the Kharlamov-Petrov-Mikhailov line stood for alot of the R OFF icetime.

And it is also worth noting that Firsov did not create most of this gap compared to his teammates against the weaker opponents but rather against the stronger ones. As you can see in the post linked here below Czechoslovakia and Sweden were clearly the strongest opponents of the Soviets during the time frame of my video study (1964-1970) and this is Firsovs R ON/R OFF numbers against them. Round 2, Vote 6 (HOH Top Wingers)

Total versus top 2 opponents (6 gp):
R ON: 6.000 (6 g f, 1 g a) - R OFF: 0.800 (8 g f, 10 g a)

Considering that the Soviets were outscored with 8:10 at even strenght without Firsov on the ice against Czechoslovakia and Sweden it is in my opinion extremely impressive that they went 6:1 at even strenght when Firsov was on the ice. And again let us remember that the Kharlamov-Petrov-Mikhailov line was on the ice for a large part of the R OFF considering that 4 out of the 6 games were played at the 1969 and 1970 WHCs.

And regarding the games against Czechoslovakia in 1969 I would say that considering that Firsov not was on the ice for a single goal against during that entire tournament (his team let in 23 goals) I don't know if him only scoring 1 goal in 2 games against Czechoslovakia is that much of a negative.
​

 

[Canadiens1958]

So the 3-2 win against Sweden in 1968 where Firsov had 2 goals and 1 assist was not a competitive game? I have watched that game multiple times and the Soviets would most likely have lost that game if not for Firsovs great performance.

Also the thing with Firsov is that his scoring achiviements only is one part of his greatness as far as I am concerned considering how great he was when it comes to keeping the opponents off the scoresheet. This is of course the reason why his R ON/R OFF numbers relative to his team seems to have been so outstanding most of the time. He was the greatest scorer on the team while he also managed to keep the opponents off the scoresheet most of the time. And as the R ON/ R OFF numbers from the available footage showed Firsov was also incredibly dominant relative to his teammates in the games against the top 2 opponents Czechoslovkia and Sweden. And in 4 out of those 6 available games the Kharlamov-Petrov-Mikhailov line stood for alot of the R OFF icetime.



And regarding the games against Czechoslovakia in 1969 I would say that considering that Firsov not was on the ice for a single goal against during that entire tournament (his team let in 23 goals) I don't know if him only scoring 1 goal in 2 games against Czechoslovakia is that much of a negative.
​

Available footage is insuffiecient to say the least.

How many of the great scorers and defensive forwards did Firsov face in adult pro level competition?

 

[Batis]

Available footage is insuffiecient to say the least.

How many of the great scorers and defensive forwards did Firsov face in adult pro level competition?

Well what I said was that his R ON/R OFF numbers relative to his team were incredibly dominant. And as I showed there was a very great line included in much of that R OFF ice time against the top 2 opponents.

But for the record Jiri Holik was one of the greatest defensive forwards in the world in the late 60's/early 70's as far as I am concerned and Vaclav Nedomansky was a pretty great scorer during his prime.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Well what I said was that his R ON/R OFF numbers relative to his team were incredibly dominant. And as I showed there was a very great line included in much of that R OFF ice time against the top 2 opponents.

But for the record Jiri Holik was one of the greatest defensive forwards in the world in the late 60's/early 70's as far as I am concerned and Vaclav Nedomansky was a pretty great scorer during his prime.

Easy to say.

Numbers generated by Holik and Nedomansky vs Firsov when their teams played each other would be more telling.

 

[wetcoast]

I'm sure that in 1964 and 1965 the Soviets were not quite "there" yet. The comment by Red Berenson from 1964 is pretty telling: "On a given night they might beat an NHL team but on another night a good junior team would beat them."



No doubt the Soviets initially struggled when they first played Canadian teams under the new rules. And yet, three years later they upset Team Canada with a roster that had not changed fundamentally from 1969-1970.

In the comment by Red Berenson, Ralph Backstrom says this after the Soviets beat a mainly junior team 3-2.

I was impressed with their sustained drive
but I think that a full AHL team would beat them easily

And while we have quotes from certain players and onlookers we have the full rosters from the 1968 Olympics which gives us an idea of the actual competition that Firsov did his damage against.

The best Canadian player was arguably a 23 year old Fran Huck, who incidentally was outscored by 3 players from Yugoslavia.

Elite Prospects - OG Stats 1967-1968

We as a group can surely measure, to some degree the players from North America and others who went on to play in the NHL and WHA form some of the European teams.

And then we can see a guy up this round like Brett Hull who excelled against best on best international competition and was an elite scoring forward in an extremely competitive NHL during his playing time.

Yet we have some posters who think Firsov is a lock this round and Hull is near the bottom?

I suspect there will be enough of a push for Firsov, since he did go top 100 in the current ATD to get him in but it will really stand out and not in a good way on this list, IMO.

Thankfully for those pushing for Firsov, for several rounds now, I don't have a vote in this process.

 

[wetcoast]

The hangup with Firsov isn't with style of play, but quality of competition. It would be like counting Durnan's Allan Cup as a significant part of his case (which is not that far off, considering Allan Cup champions dominated international hockey until 1961.)

The field was largely composed of juniors and amateurs who were overmatched by his team. If you think Durnan had it easy in the mid 40s, why doesn't anyone look at Firsov's team tripling its opponents in GF:GA?

Perhaps I can be proven wrong by a study of his scoring by opponent, but he seems to be the type of guy who had his greatest tournament in 1968 where he scored a goal against every opponent - except in the one competitive game his team lost to Czechoslovakia.

Firsov would pile on 5 goals of his team's 25 goals in wins over the Americans and then score only 1 goal in 2 losses to Czechoslovakia in 1969.

I feel like backing Firsov at this point would be like pumping up Peter Forsberg as the greatest World Juniors performer in history - without anyone looking into where those points came from.​

This is the crux of the matter.

We don't know how Firsov would have fared against NHL player, nor does it really matter.

What we have is his record playing for the rising Soviet power on the WC stage in the mid 60's who played and trained together for much of the year full time as a unit against very suspect competition (in comparison to say Brett Hull and well over 90% of players in this project).

The level of competition, or lack of it for Firsov, is much more concrete than quotes even from established hockey people when taken literally ar often headshaking at worst and polite at best.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I strongly disagree with those who won't vote for Firsov because he didn't play in against NHLers (in the Summit Series). But I respect the opinion.

However, I don't respect anyone presenting him as strictly a "mid 60s" guy, as that is false, perhaps deliberately so.

 

[wetcoast]

I strongly disagree with those who won't vote for Firsov because he didn't play in against NHLers (in the Summit Series). But I respect the opinion.

However, I don't respect anyone presenting him as strictly a "mid 60s" guy, as that is false, perhaps deliberately so.

The mid 60's reference (if that was directed towards me) that I made was in reference to the rise of the Soviet team to international dominance.

We all know that Firsov was an elite Soviet player from the early 60's to the early 70's.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The mid 60's reference (if that was directed towards me) that I made was in reference to the rise of the Soviet team to international dominance.

We all know that Firsov was an elite Soviet player from the early 60's to the early 70's.

Yes, it was largely directed at you.

I think the distinction is important to make that Firsov was a mid-60s to early 70s player, when the entire argument in his favor is that what he did in the early 70s retroactively validates the rest of his prime (which did indeed start in the mid 60s).

 

[seventieslord]

I want to challenge the notion that we have to assume Firsov would have excelled in the NHL in order to be worthy of this list. The rationale behind that notion is obvious enough and at first sight it appears entirely plausible. But my counter argument is this (and the following is a mere repetition of something I've written before):

As Fetisov's first coach in the NHL said in early 1990: We saw the Soviets could play well against NHL players, but whether they can play as well with NHL players is another question.

Why do we even take the NHL as the yardstick of quality? Now that's an easy one to answer: Because the NHL is and has historically been the best league in the world. But my follow-up question is where it should get interesting: Why is the NHL the best league in the world? What makes it so? To me this answer seems simple too: because the NHL has most of the best players in the world. The depth of talent and also the peak of talent dwarfs the other league in the world, past and present.

Now when you grow up as a fan of such an unipolar sport as hockey, where one single league has been the number one in the world as long as anybody can remember, it's only natural you also grow up with the implicit assumption that the way the game is played in the NHL is the definite way to play the game. But this, in my opinion, is a fallacy. The tactical blueprints and the fundamental ideas how to play the game as they are common in the NHL are just one out of several possible approaches that are not necessarily superior or inferior to each other. There could be (and in fact have been) alternative approaches outside of North America that work just as well on a tactical level. In fact the NHL could have it wrong tactically and still come out on top of the other leagues simply due to its superior talent pool. Mind you, that's not what I'm really assuming: For example, I'm not assuming Soviet-style possession hockey is inherently superior to traditional Canadian dump-and-chase hockey. But neither is traditional Canadian dump-and-chase hockey inherently superior to Soviet-style possession hockey. Both approaches can suck if not executed well. Both approaches can work if executed well. Neither is fundamentally right or wrong and neither is fundamentally better than the other. And yet, the difference between these approaches can be so massive that it is very difficult even for extremely talented players to switch from one game to the other.​

The fundamental differences between the Canadian approach and the Soviet approach when it comes to tactics and style of play are obvious. David Bauer already described them in 1967-1968:

"The two teams play different styles. For the professionals the main principle is to shoot, hammer the puck ahead and put pressure on the goaltender. The Soviet team focuses on buildup and puck possession. Both are good at what they're doing. (...) Only the Montreal Canadiens are able to combine those two styles. (... ) Each has their own qualities. It would be difficult for the players to play on the team of the opponent."​

That Bauer thought only the Canadiens with Beliveau, Pocket Rocket, an excellent supporting cast and some of the best coaching and management in hockey history were capable of combining the two styles isn't surprising. Scotty Bowman's Canadiens continued that tradition when they both outplayed CSKA Moscow and stopped the Broad Street Bullies.

The difference was persistent. In the 1960s knowledgeable Canadian observers thought the Soviets passed too much. And when the Soviets finally started to play in the NHL, Terry Crisp complained that Makarov would "backpass three times on a breakaway". The basic difference in the approaches didn't change. But something else did: The Summit Series caused many Canadian observers to re-evaluate their appreciation of the Soviet game. Did they pass too much? Or was Ken Dryden right when he said: "Just because they are doing it differently, it doesn't mean they are doing it wrong."

Harry Sinden was one of those who re-evaluated his views. After Game 1 he acknowledged that the best Soviet players like Kharlamov were more individually skilled than he had thought. Someone else who apparently did a re-evaluation was Scotty Bowman. In 1974 the Montreal Canadiens put Anatoly Firsov, the biggest star of the Soviets in the years prior to the Summit Series, on their negotiation list, asked him if he wanted to play for them (Firsov said yes) and wrote a letter to the Soviet Prime Minister to get Firsov released. And in 2010 Bowman called him the greatest Russian player he had seen.

Unfortunately it seems not everybody is capable of a re-evaluation.

I hope this isn't directed at me as though I'm seen as a detractor of Firsov. In all likelihood, at least a dozen voters will rank him lower than I do. I honestly want to get the most complete picture of him and even asked for as much - a compendium of all the data points that infer what caliber of player he appeared to be better than, worse than and roughly equal to at various points would be really helpful.

And I agree that we don't need to demonstrate that he would have excelled in the NHL, for the reasons that you stated, at least not in a thought exercise where a soviet-trained Firsov just hops on a plane in 1965. It was, a completely different approach to hockey. I'm not as focused on whether his style was right for the NHL or how it would have fared there - I'm focused more on his actual level of natural talent, the actual quality of his play and the value he can deliver to a team. I'm more interested in what a Firsov who is given every opportunity to learn North American hockey from the start might have accomplished - and not because the NHL style of play is the only, or even the right way to play, but simply because that's the most complete measuring stick that we have - there's a notch on that thing every 1mm, without fail. The european measuring stick has a few notches here, a few more there, a bunch clumped together in one range, and other ranges where no notches exist. I want to know, should I equate him to an NHL depth player? An average NHL 1st liner? a two-time all-star? a four-time all-star? a six-time all-star and one-time scoring champ? A decade-long Hart threat?

 

[Theokritos]

The hangup with Firsov isn't with style of play, but quality of competition.​

That's fair and I've acknowledged as much:

Of course, the counter argument remains valid: They didn't face NHL opposition.

Style of play was brought up because it was said that Firsov would have had to achieve this or that in the NHL.​

 

[Canadiens1958]

I hope this isn't directed at me as though I'm seen as a detractor of Firsov. In all likelihood, at least a dozen voters will rank him lower than I do. I honestly want to get the most complete picture of him and even asked for as much - a compendium of all the data points that infer what caliber of player he appeared to be better than, worse than and roughly equal to at various points would be really helpful.

And I agree that we don't need to demonstrate that he would have excelled in the NHL, for the reasons that you stated, at least not in a thought exercise where a soviet-trained Firsov just hops on a plane in 1965. It was, a completely different approach to hockey. I'm not as focused on whether his style was right for the NHL or how it would have fared there - I'm focused more on his actual level of natural talent, the actual quality of his play and the value he can deliver to a team. I'm more interested in what a Firsov who is given every opportunity to learn North American hockey from the start might have accomplished - and not because the NHL style of play is the only, or even the right way to play, but simply because that's the most complete measuring stick that we have - there's a notch on that thing every 1mm, without fail. The european measuring stick has a few notches here, a few more there, a bunch clumped together in one range, and other ranges where no notches exist. I want to know, should I equate him to an NHL depth player? An average NHL 1st liner? a two-time all-star? a four-time all-star? a six-time all-star and one-time scoring champ? A decade-long Hart threat?

Bolded represents what most participants want. Sadly your honest and humble request has been ignored to date.

Likewise, a simpler and easier request is being avoid. A trivial comparison between Firsov and Holik and Nedomansky in direct National team vs National team competition.

Hope the tradition and standards of these projects continue and honest and humble requests will be honoured.

 

[Theokritos]

I hope this isn't directed at me as though I'm seen as a detractor of Firsov.

Don't worry. I agree with your reasoning ("should I equate him with... ?").

On the other hand NHL or North American greats - Harvey, Plante, Howe, Bobby Hull, etc past retirement age for Soviets adapted in minutes.True greats are capable of playing every style, execute all the tactics.

Those true greats you name were voted in a long time ago. They all went in the top 20 here and rightfully so. So that's not exactly a strong argument against any player who is up for voting now.

Firsov did not even though he was given four seasons to adjust.

If you said Firsov was unproven in this regard because he didn't play against NHLers I would say that's fair. But instead you claim he didn't adjust as if it was a matter of fact.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The perpetual half-truths and obfuscation continue by someone who refers to generated results but did not contribute to them by submitting an original list and becoming a voting participant.

Suggest rereading my post. Notice the "etc"after Bobby Hull.This includes a fair number of players whose made such adjustments, whose careers were contemporary to Firsov and who have not been considered to date and may not be considered eventually. Vaclav Nedomansky,Ralph Backstrom, Carl Brewer, Jacques Lemaire, Serge Savard, Gary Bergman, Pat Stapleton, Bill White, Ron Ellis, Paul Henderson,Tony Esposito, Red Berenson, Gilbert Perreault just to name a few.

Your faint hope positions are not supportable.

Guy Lafleur did not adjust to aging. Firsov had a double whammy. Not playing against NHLers and aging.

 

[DN28]

I hope this isn't directed at me as though I'm seen as a detractor of Firsov. In all likelihood, at least a dozen voters will rank him lower than I do. I honestly want to get the most complete picture of him and even asked for as much - a compendium of all the data points that infer what caliber of player he appeared to be better than, worse than and roughly equal to at various points would be really helpful.

And I agree that we don't need to demonstrate that he would have excelled in the NHL, for the reasons that you stated, at least not in a thought exercise where a soviet-trained Firsov just hops on a plane in 1965. It was, a completely different approach to hockey. I'm not as focused on whether his style was right for the NHL or how it would have fared there - I'm focused more on his actual level of natural talent, the actual quality of his play and the value he can deliver to a team. I'm more interested in what a Firsov who is given every opportunity to learn North American hockey from the start might have accomplished - and not because the NHL style of play is the only, or even the right way to play, but simply because that's the most complete measuring stick that we have - there's a notch on that thing every 1mm, without fail. The european measuring stick has a few notches here, a few more there, a bunch clumped together in one range, and other ranges where no notches exist. I want to know, should I equate him to an NHL depth player? An average NHL 1st liner? a two-time all-star? a four-time all-star? a six-time all-star and one-time scoring champ? A decade-long Hart threat?

I´m not sure if this is precisely what you have in mind, but I can always provide a quick season-by-season breakdown, so that everyone can make fully informed judgement about Firsov´s career trajectory.

Before we start, few disclaimers:

- Firsov was born in February 1941
- SPOTY voting = ‘Soviet player of the year’ voting ( Link )
- SPOTY voting started in 1968, to determine the value of Firsov´s pre-1968 seasons (or of any other 1960s Soviet players in general) we have the ‘Top 33/34 Players of the Season’ that goes back to 1958-1959. These lists ranked 34 Soviet players strictly within their own positions, so we can´t use this to find out which player was the best one of all but we can extract from it who was considered the best LW, best C, best goalie etc. in a given season. Link 1, Link 2
- And apart from that, there is always the classic ‘Soviet All-Star Team’ of the season, the official ones go back to 1958 and retroactive ones go back to 1947. What´s noteworthy about these AST selections is that the Soviet experts were simply picking the 3 best forwards in general, the standard LW-C-RW pattern was not followed, so Soviet AST data gives us additional indication about who was / wasn´t regarded as at least the 3rd best forward in a given season. ( Link )

Before 1963-1964
It took Firsov relatively longer time to become a member of the Soviet National team compared to other Soviet greats. He was 22 years old until started playing internationally. Firsov´s wiki profile actually states that he initially began with bandy hockey (as many other Soviet players) and he moved to "classic" ice hockey when he was 15. I think it may have something to do with that. Although bandy hockey experience may have also boosted "...his endurance as he had to skate longer distances because bandy fields would be approximately 100m in length compared to hockey's 60m in length."

1963-1964
– 9 points in 8 games at OG 64, outside top 10 in scoring (7th in scoring in his own team???), no award recognition
- (most likely) 36 goals in ? games in the League and 3rd in league scoring, but also 3rd in his own team, 4 goals behind Almetov who led the scoring. The League schedule had 36 games.
- named as best Soviet LW of the season, also named into Soviet all-star team as 1 of 3 best forwards of the season. So overall this was very good season for Firsov, especially for someone´s first stint with the National team.

1964-1965
– 9 points in 6 games at WHC 65, 7th in scoring, 11th best forward according to AST voting (with 4 votes out of 53 ballots)
- 21 goals in 34 games in the League, 8th in league scoring, 4th in his own team, 7 goals behind Tsyplakov who led the scoring
- only 3rd best Soviet LW of the season, no Soviet all-star team. So we can confidently say that this wasn´t particularly great season from Firsov yet.

1965-1966
– 5 points in 6 games at WHC 66, outside top 10 in scoring (10th in scoring in his own team???), no award recognition but we don´t have any AST voting data from this tournament besides the top 3 forwards that made the all-star team. This doesn´t look great on surface but we do have accounts of considerable praise for Firsov´s play at this championship from Czech press (calling Firsov one of the two best forwards of the final deciding game vs. CSSR), from Czech coach (Vladimir Kostka put Firsov into his own all-star team), and from Anatoli Tarasov himself who claimed later that Firsov basically sacrificed his stats for helping to ease the entry for two rookies Vikulov and Polupanov who were guarded and mentored by Firsov in the 3rd line throughout the tournament.

Having read these ´66 reports, perhaps I should also add, with regards to ongoing discussions here on this subforum about ‘Top 100 players of all-time’ lists, that I´ve discovered quite strong appreciation of the game of Anatoli Firsov at this tournament. Seemingly only 5 points and being well outside of the best scorers doesn´t make an impression of great tournament but Firsov was:

a) singled out as the best forward of the game along with Starshinov in the final game vs. Czechoslovakia (which was the game Soviets actually had to win in order to earn 1st place, tie would mean gold medal for CSSR) by the writers of game reports, Gustav Vlk and Zdeněk Valenta.

b) included into Vladimír Kostka´s (CSSR coach) own version of the ´66 Championship´s All-Star Team. Kostka named this one: Martin – Kuzkin, Begg – Prýl, Starshinov, Firsov.

c) given a special role at the tournament – to look after and take care of two rookies in the team, Vikulov and Polupanov, while playing in the 3rd line. It is mentioned by writers of the Československý sport and by Tarasov himself, that his “mentorship” was highly appreciated. They spoke about Firsov that he has been going through noticeable improvements year by year.

EDIT: Also considering the fact that 1966 was the only Firsov´s season where he won the (goal)scoring in the Soviet league, I am quite convinced that he belonged to the Europe´s best players already here in this season.

- 40 goals in 36 games in the League and 1st in league scoring overall with solid 9 goals lead ahead of Alexandrov who came 2nd
- the best Soviet LW of the season, also named into Soviet all-star team as 1 of 3 best forwards of the season. Overall this season was the start of Firsov´s prime and I think we can confidently say that he became one of the Europe´s best players here in this season.

1966-1967
– 22 points in 7 games at WHC 67, 1st in scoring, WHC all-star LW (1st in AST voting), Directoriate´s best forward
- 41 goals in 42 games in the League, 2nd in league scoring, 6 goals behind Starshinov, otherwise 1st in his own team. Although it should be said that CSKA lost the title to Spartak Moscow this season. A rare feat, Starshinov might have been just as good as Firsov specifically this league season given his scoring exploits and extraordinary team success.
- the best Soviet LW of the season, also named into Soviet all-star team as 1 of 3 best forwards of the season. So overall taking league and WHC performance into account, it is very likely that Firsov was the best Soviet and European player here.

1967-1968
– 16 points in 7 games at OG 68, 1st in scoring, WHC all-star LW (1st in AST voting), Directoriate´s best forward
- 33 goals in 43 games in the League, 2nd in league scoring, full 13 goals behind Starshinov again, otherwise again 1st in his own team
- 1st in SPOTY voting, Soviet all-star team. This season is of similar quality as Firsov´s previous season, not much that can be criticized, Firsov was the best Soviet player of the season, although this time Jan Suchy deserves to be brought up as a serious challenger to Firsov´s "throne" of being the best in Europe based on everything I´ve read about this season.

1968-1969
– 14 points in 10 games at WHC 69, 1st in scoring, WHC all-star LW (2nd in AST voting of forwards)
- 28 goals in 38 games, 5th in league scoring, 3rd in his own team behind Kharlamov of 9 goals and Mikhailov of 8 goals. 22 goals behind league-leading Alex Yakushev from Spartak. Similarly to 1967, Spartak Moscow achieved the rare feat of defeating CSKA for the league title, which really must have have been gained through heroic effort of Yakushev and Starshinov. The scoring table from this season speaks for itself:
1. Aleksandr Yakushev Spartak 50 goals
2. Vyacheslav Starshinov Spartak 40
3. Valeri Kharlamov CSKA 37
4. Boris Mikhailov CSKA 36
5. Anatoli Firsov CSKA 28
6. Vladimir Petrov CSKA 27
Valeri Chekatkin Sverdlovsk 27
8. Aleksandr Maltsev Dynamo 26
Vladimir Rasko Krylia 26
10. Vladimir Yurzinov Dynamo 24
- 1st in SPOTY voting, Soviet all-star team
- for this season, we also have a one-off poll for the best player in Europe where Firsov was voted as 3rd, 1st best Soviet and 2nd best forward:

Ceskoslovensky Sport asked a bunch of hockey people to vote for and rank their top three European players during the 1968-69 season in order to determine the top European player of that season. Three points was given for first place, two for second and one for third.
Maybe it is not entirely fitting in this thread (as many are voted in already), but I just stumbled past it and thought it might be of interest anyway.

Mod Edit: Moved to another thread. Definitely of interest.

COACHES

Arne Strömberg (Sweden): 1. Suchý, 2. Sterner, 3. Kharlamov

Vladimir Kostka (Czechoslovakia): 1. Ji. Holik, 2. Sterner, 3. Suchý

Gustav Bubnik (Finland) (originally Czech): 1. Firsov, 2. Sterner, 3. N. Nilsson

Wayne Dornack (USA): 1. Suchý, 2. Svedberg, 3. Firsov

Jack Bownass (Canada): 1. Suchý, 2. Sterner, 3. Dzurilla

Anatoli Tarasov (Soviet Union): 1. Holmqvist, 2. Svedberg, 3. Ja. Holik

JOURNALISTS

Gustav Vlk (Ceskoslovensky Sport): 1. Suchý, 2. Sterner, 3. Jirik

Jouko Autero (Aamulehti Tampere): 1. Suchý, 2. Sterner, 3. Ja. Holik

Ulf Jansson (Se i Bild, Stockholm): 1. Suchý, 2. Kharlamov, 3. Ji. Holik

Evgeny Rubin (Sovetsky Sport): 1. Sterner, 2. Suchý, 3. Ja. Holik

Johnny Esaw (Canadian TV): 1. Suchý, 2. Horesovský, 3. Svedberg

Mike Smith (Winnipeg Free Press): 1. Holmqvist, 2. Demarco, 3. Nedomanský

FORMER NATIONAL TEAM PLAYERS

Frantisek Vanek (Czechoslovakia): 1. Suchý, 2. Sterner, 3. Jirik

Jan Starsi (Czechoslovakia): 1. Suchý, 2. Jirik, 3. Firsov

Boris Mayorov (Soviet Union): 1. Suchý, 2. Sterner, 3. Firsov

Roland Stoltz (Sweden): 1. Dzurilla, 2. Suchý, 3. Sterner

Tumba Johansson (Sweden): 1. Suchý, 2. Holmqvist, 3. Firsov

FINAL STANDING

1.Jan Suchý (Czechoslovakia) 47 pts
2.Ulf Sterner (Sweden) 24
3.Anatoli Firsov (Soviet Union) 9
4.Lill Strimma Svedberg (Sweden) 8
4.Honken Holmqvist (Sweden) 8
6.Jaroslav Holik (Czechoslovakia) 6
7.Jiri Holik (Czechoslovakia) 5
8.Vladimir Dzurilla (Czechoslovakia) 4
8.Jaroslav Jirik (Czechoslovakia) 4
10.Vaclav Nedomanský (Czechoslovakia) 3
10.Valeri Kharlamov (Soviet Union) 3
12.Josef Horesovský (Czechoslovakia) 2
12. Ab DeMarco (Canada) 2
14.Nisse Nilsson (Sweden) 1

1969-1970
– 16 points in 8 games at WHC 70, 3rd in scoring, WHC all-star LW (2nd in AST voting of forwards)
- 33 goals in 38 games, 6th in league scoring, 4th in his own team, 18 goals behind league-leading Petrov who played 5 more games though
- 7th in SPOTY voting, 5th among forwards and not named into Soviet all-star team as 1 of 3 best forwards of the season. This season is a head-scratcher, why suddenly only voted as 7th best Soviet player despite Firsov´s yet another strong WHC performance (4th all-star LW in a row by now)? I can only offer a speculation that weak SPOTY result was caused by a combination of:

a) little bit weaker WHC performance compared to his previous showings. I´ve read the ´70 WHC game reports (and for transparency, I´ve only read, photographed and stored on my dropbox the 1966 and 1970 game reports from those championships that Firsov participated in..) and it is mentioned that Firsov missed 2 games, one of which was the 1st game vs. CSSR, due to leg inflammation and very high fever. It´s understandable that his athleticism and subsequently his performance may have been slowed down by this. The reports themselves make it quite clear that the player who was watched and talked about the most by everybody was Jan Suchy. Otherwise this WHC was also the big "coming out party" for Alexander Maltsev who won the scoring. Lennart Svedberg had terrific tournament as well. The AST voting suggests similar thing: 87 voters and Maltsev got 80 votes, Suchy got 78, while Firsov 59 votes and Svedberg 58 votes as the fourth best voting result.
b) perhaps a bit weaker league play as well? 6th in league (goal)scoring while being 4th in his own CSKA team and full 18 goals behind Petrov doesn´t scream like a huge domestic season. Firsov also missed 6 league games by playing in 38 out of 44 games.
c) voter fatigue and unequal evaluating standards for Firsov compared to others (???)

1970-1971
– 19 points in 10 games at WHC 71, 1st in scoring, WHC all-star LW (1st in AST voting), Directoriate´s best forward
- 27 points (17+10) in 33 games, approximately 16th in league scoring (?), 5th in his own team behind Vikulov, Petrov, Mikhailov and Kharlamov. League leaders were Maltsev (56-57 points) and Kharlamov (51-52 points, 40 goals).
- 1st in SPOTY voting, but weirdly enough Firsov was not named into Soviet all-star team again. Kharlamov, Maltsev, Vikulov were instead.
- so another outstanding season by Firsov, although his stats from league season raise an eyebrow and it probably caused his absence from Soviet all-star team

1971-1972
– 7 points in 5 games at OG 72, 7th in scoring, no individual awards were given or voted for any 70´s, 80´s Olympics
- did not play at WHC 72 where Soviets lost the title to Czechoslovakia and went without 1st place finish for the first time since 1961/1962. It is noteworthy that a second the Soviets play without Firsov they suffer from major upset.
- 28 points (18+10) in 29 games, 10-11th in the league scoring, 6th in scoring in his own team behind Mikhailov, Blinov, Petrov, Vikulov and Kharlamov. The latter two led the league with 42-43 points.
- 5th in SPOTY voting, 5th among forwards, no Soviet all-star team
- another strong season by Firsov, still voted as the 5th best Soviet here, but it´s obvious that by this point Firsov was not one of the top players outside North America. Another point in his favour is that Firsov successfully managed the move to centre position from LW. My understanding of this is that Firsov played more defensively oriented role in Tarasov´s scheme and his wings Kharlamov, Vikulov were given more offensive role.

1972-1973
– did not play at SS 72 nor WHC 73
- 33 points (25+8) in 32 games, approximately 9th in the league scoring, 4th in his own team behind Mikhailov, Vikulov and Petrov who led the league with 49 points
- no votes in SPOTY voting (11 different players including 7 forwards received at least a vote). Also 6 of Firsov´s CSKA teammates received at least a vote. No Soviet all-star team.
- correct me if I´m wrong but I believe Firsov here combined the roles of a player and assistant coach which points to his hockey intelligence and respect he had among his teammates.

1973-1974
– officially retired, although according to eliteprospects.com Firsov played 4 league games, registering 2 points

Summary
- Firsov had a nice condensed prime that lasted six seasons (1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971).
- During these six seasons, he was the best, or in the conversation of being one of best, player in Europe.
- Outside this 66-71 prime, Firsov added at least 2 strong seasons: 1964 (best Soviet LW and Soviet all-star team which indicate that he was arguably top 10 player in Europe for the season), 1972 (voted as 5th best Soviet in pretty strong competition, successful positional transition, USSR´s fail at WHC once Firsov refused to play under Bobrov).
- Firsov´s 1965 and 1973 doesn´t appear to add any meaningful value.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I´m not sure if this is precisely what you have in mind, but I can always provide a quick season-by-season breakdown, so that everyone can make fully informed judgement about Firsov´s career trajectory.

Before we start, few disclaimers:

- Firsov was born in February 1941
- SPOTY voting = ‘Soviet player of the year’ voting ( Link )
- SPOTY voting started in 1968, to determine the value of Firsov´s pre-1968 seasons (or of any other 1960s Soviet players in general) we have the ‘Top 33/34 Players of the Season’ that goes back to 1958-1959. These lists ranked 34 Soviet players strictly within their own positions, so we can´t use this to find out which player was the best one of all but we can extract from it who was considered the best LW, best C, best goalie etc. in a given season. Link 1, Link 2
- And apart from that, there is always the classic ‘Soviet All-Star Team’ of the season, the official ones go back to 1958 and retroactive ones go back to 1947. What´s noteworthy about these AST selections is that the Soviet experts were simply picking the 3 best forwards in general, the standard LW-C-RW pattern was not followed, so Soviet AST data gives us additional indication about who was / wasn´t regarded as at least the 3rd best forward in a given season. ( Link )

Before 1963-1964
It took Firsov relatively longer time to become a member of the Soviet National team compared to other Soviet greats. He was 22 years old until started playing internationally. Firsov´s wiki profile actually states that he initially began with bandy hockey (as many other Soviet players) and he moved to "classic" ice hockey when he was 15. I think it may have something to do with that. Although bandy hockey experience may have also boosted "...his endurance as he had to skate longer distances because bandy fields would be approximately 100m in length compared to hockey's 60m in length."

1963-1964
– 9 points in 8 games at OG 64, outside top 10 in scoring (7th in scoring in his own team???), no award recognition.
- (most likely) 36 goals in ? games in the League and 3rd in league scoring, but also 3rd in his own team, 4 goals behind Almetov who led the scoring. The League schedule had 36 games.
- named as best Soviet LW of the season, also named into Soviet all-star team as 1 of 3 best forwards of the season. So overall this was very good season for Firsov, especially for someone´s first stint with the National team.

1964-1965
– 9 points in 6 games at WHC 65, 7th in scoring, 11th best forward according to AST voting (with 4 votes out of 53 ballots)
- 21 goals in 34 games in the League, 8th in league scoring, 4th in his own team, 7 goals behind Tsyplakov who led the scoring
- only 3rd best Soviet LW of the season, no Soviet all-star team. So we can confidently say that this wasn´t particularly great season from Firsov yet.

1965-1966
– 5 points in 6 games at WHC 66, outside top 10 in scoring (10th in scoring in his own team???), no award recognition but we don´t have any AST voting data from this tournament besides the top 3 forwards that made the all-star team. This doesn´t look great on surface but we do have accounts of considerable praise for Firsov´s play at this championship from Czech press (calling Firsov one of the two best forwards of the final deciding game vs. CSSR), from Czech coach (Vladimir Kostka put Firsov into his own all-star team), and from Anatoli Tarasov himself who claimed later that Firsov basically sacrificed his stats for helping to ease the entry for two rookies Vikulov and Polupanov who were guarded and mentored by Firsov in the 3rd line throughout the tournament.

- 40 goals in 36 games in the League and 1st in league scoring overall with solid 9 goals lead ahead of Alexandrov who came 2nd
- the best Soviet LW of the season, also named into Soviet all-star team as 1 of 3 best forwards of the season. Overall this season was the start of Firsov´s prime and I think we can confidently say that he became one of the Europe´s best players here in this season.

1966-1967
– 22 points in 7 games at WHC 67, 1st in scoring, WHC all-star LW (1st in AST voting), Directoriate´s best forward
- 41 goals in 42 games in the League, 2nd in league scoring, 6 goals behind Starshinov, otherwise 1st in his own team. Although it should be said that CSKA lost the title to Spartak Moscow this season. A rare feat, Starshinov might have been just as good as Firsov specifically this league season given his scoring exploits and extraordinary team success.
- the best Soviet LW of the season, also named into Soviet all-star team as 1 of 3 best forwards of the season. So overall taking league and WHC performance into account, it is very likely that Firsov was the best Soviet and European player here.

1967-1968
– 16 points in 7 games at OG 68, 1st in scoring, WHC all-star LW (1st in AST voting), Directoriate´s best forward
- 33 goals in 43 games in the League, 2nd in league scoring, full 13 goals behind Starshinov again, otherwise again 1st in his own team
- 1st in SPOTY voting, Soviet all-star team. This season is of similar quality as Firsov´s previous season, not much that can be criticized, Firsov was the best Soviet player of the season, although this time Jan Suchy deserves to be brought up as a serious challenger to Firsov´s "throne" of being the best in Europe based on everything I´ve read about this season.

1968-1969
– 14 points in 10 games at WHC 69, 1st in scoring, WHC all-star LW (2nd in AST voting of forwards)
- 28 goals in 38 games, 5th in league scoring, 3rd in his own team behind Kharlamov of 9 goals and Mikhailov of 8 goals. 22 goals behind league-leading Alex Yakushev from Spartak. Similarly to 1967, Spartak Moscow achieved the rare feat of defeating CSKA for the league title, which really must have have been gained through heroic effort of Yakushev and Starshinov. The scoring table from this season speaks for itself:
1. Aleksandr Yakushev Spartak 50 goals
2. Vyacheslav Starshinov Spartak 40
3. Valeri Kharlamov CSKA 37
4. Boris Mikhailov CSKA 36
5. Anatoli Firsov CSKA 28
6. Vladimir Petrov CSKA 27
Valeri Chekatkin Sverdlovsk 27
8. Aleksandr Maltsev Dynamo 26
Vladimir Rasko Krylia 26
10. Vladimir Yurzinov Dynamo 24
- 1st in SPOTY voting, Soviet all-star team
- for this season, we also have a one-off poll for the best player in Europe where Firsov was voted as 3rd, 1st best Soviet and 2nd best forward:


1969-1970
– 16 points in 8 games at WHC 70, 3rd in scoring, WHC all-star LW (2nd in AST voting of forwards)
- 33 goals in 38 games, 6th in league scoring, 4th in his own team, 18 goals behind league-leading Petrov who played 5 more games though
- 7th in SPOTY voting, 5th among forwards and not named into Soviet all-star team as 1 of 3 best forwards of the season. This season is a head-scratcher, why suddenly only voted as 7th best Soviet player despite Firsov´s yet another strong WHC performance (4th all-star LW in a row by now)? I can only offer a speculation that weak SPOTY result was caused by a combination of:

a) little bit weaker WHC performance compared to his previous showings. I´ve read the ´70 WHC game reports (and for transparency, I´ve only read, photographed and stored on my dropbox the 1966 and 1970 game reports from those championships that Firsov participated in..) and it is mentioned that Firsov missed 2 games, one of which was the 1st game vs. CSSR, due to leg inflammation and very high fever. It´s understandable that his athleticism and subsequently his performance may have been slowed down by this. The reports themselves make it quite clear that the player who was watched and talked about the most by everybody was Jan Suchy. Otherwise this WHC was also the big "coming out party" for Alexander Maltsev who won the scoring. Lennart Svedberg had terrific tournament as well. The AST voting suggests similar thing: 87 voters and Maltsev got 80 votes, Suchy got 78, while Firsov 59 votes and Svedberg 58 votes as the fourth best voting result.
b) perhaps a bit weaker league play as well? 6th in league (goal)scoring while being 4th in his own CSKA team and full 18 goals behind Petrov doesn´t scream like a huge domestic season. Firsov also missed 6 league games by playing in 38 out of 44 games.
c) voter fatigue and unequal evaluating standards for Firsov compared to others (???)

1970-1971
– 19 points in 10 games at WHC 71, 1st in scoring, WHC all-star LW (1st in AST voting), Directoriate´s best forward
- 27 points (17+10) in 33 games, approximately 16th in league scoring (?), 5th in his own team behind Vikulov, Petrov, Mikhailov and Kharlamov. League leaders were Maltsev (56-57 points) and Kharlamov (51-52 points, 40 goals).
- 1st in SPOTY voting, but weirdly enough Firsov was not named into Soviet all-star team again. Kharlamov, Maltsev, Vikulov were instead.
- so another outstanding season by Firsov, although his stats from league season raise an eyebrow and it probably caused his absence from Soviet all-star team

1971-1972
– 7 points in 5 games at OG 72, 7th in scoring, no individual awards were given or voted for any 70´s, 80´s Olympics
- did not play at WHC 72 where Soviets lost the title to Czechoslovakia and went without 1st place finish for the first time since 1961/1962. It is noteworthy that a second the Soviets play without Firsov they suffer from major upset.
- 28 points (18+10) in 29 games, 10-11th in the league scoring, 6th in scoring in his own team behind Mikhailov, Blinov, Petrov, Vikulov and Kharlamov. The latter two led the league with 42-43 points.
- 5th in SPOTY voting, 5th among forwards, no Soviet all-star team
- another strong season by Firsov, still voted as the 5th best Soviet here, but it´s obvious that by this point Firsov was not one of the top players outside North America. Another point in his favour is that Firsov successfully managed the move to centre position from LW. My understanding of this is that Firsov played more defensively oriented role in Tarasov´s scheme and his wings Kharlamov, Vikulov were given more offensive role.

1972-1973
– did not play at SS 72 nor WHC 73
- 33 points (25+8) in 32 games, approximately 9th in the league scoring, 4th in his own team behind Mikhailov, Vikulov and Petrov who led the league with 49 points
- no votes in SPOTY voting (11 different players including 7 forwards received at least a vote). Also 6 of Firsov´s CSKA teammates received at least a vote. No Soviet all-star team.
- correct me if I´m wrong but I believe Firsov here combined the roles of a player and assistant coach which points to his hockey intelligence and respect he had among his teammates.

1973-1974
– officially retired, although according to eliteprospects.com Firsov played 4 league games, registering 2 points

Summary
- Firsov had a nice condensed prime that lasted six seasons (1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971).
- During these six seasons, he was the best, or in the conversation of being one of best, player in Europe.
- Outside this 66-71 prime, Firsov added at least 2 strong seasons: 1964 (best Soviet LW and Soviet all-star team which indicate that he was arguably top 10 player in Europe for the season), 1972 (voted as 5th best Soviet in pretty strong competition, successful positional transition, USSR´s fail at WHC once Firsov refused to play under Bobrov).
- Firsov´s 1965 and 1973 doesn´t appear to add any meaningful value.

Not quite what we had in mind. Will illustrate what we want.

You stated:

– 9 points in 8 games at OG 64, outside top 10 in scoring (7th in scoring in his own team???), no award recognition.

What we want to know,is basic, who were the players, at least 10, who outscored Firsov and their point totals. Repeat for the WHCs and other OGs, listing the 2nd-5th if Firsov led.

That Firsov first played on the National team at 22 is interesting.

 

[wetcoast]

Spoty voting appears to really favour the small sample WC and OG play over domestic league play.

70-71 seems to be the prime example here 1st in spoty voting yet 5th on his own team in scoring and 16th in the league.

Doesn't make the all star team either.

The Spoty and the Hart appear to be measuring somewhat different things.

Also how he fared in that poll, when he was at his peak really muddles the issue even further

FINAL STANDING

1.Jan Suchý (Czechoslovakia) 47 pts
2.Ulf Sterner (Sweden) 24
3.Anatoli Firsov (Soviet Union) 9
4.Lill Strimma Svedberg (Sweden) 8
4.Honken Holmqvist (Sweden) 8
6.Jaroslav Holik (Czechoslovakia) 6
7.Jiri Holik (Czechoslovakia) 5
8.Vladimir Dzurilla (Czechoslovakia) 4
8.Jaroslav Jirik (Czechoslovakia) 4
10.Vaclav Nedomanský (Czechoslovakia) 3
10.Valeri Kharlamov (Soviet Union) 3
12.Josef Horesovský (Czechoslovakia) 2
12. Ab DeMarco (Canada) 2
14.Nisse Nilsson (Sweden) 1

Not exactly a list of top 100 players of all time, although a couple might make the top 200 or maybe not.

I know Kharlamov does but he was still emerging into what he would become at the time of the poll.

#2 on that list Ulf Sterner does have some playing time against AHL player when he was 23 and later in his career in London with some other North American players.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

@Kyle McMahon

Throw in a guy like Neely in that equation too. 50 goals in 44 games with Oates, before getting injured. If we cut his pace in half for the remainder of the season that's still around 70 goals, if healthy, which is what Hull scored in his peak years outside of 90–91.

But the point remains, Neely only had one burst at a Hull-like level of scoring. Hull's ability to produce at those levels was sustained for a number of years, and it makes him unique among remaining candidates as far as goal scoring goes. I mean, Jari Kurri is known as a goal scorer above anything else, and he played in a situation/era even more conducive to goal scoring than Hull did, and even he "only" averaged about 60 per season during his four-year peak.

I think the question becomes, was Kurri's better all-around game enough to elevate him above Hull? And was Malone's importance to his era enough of a consideration to boost him above as well? Was Denneny too much a product of great players around him? Because even these great goal scorers weren't scoring them at the same rate as Hull during his prime. And in the case of Kurri and Denneny, it's hard to argue that they weren't in as good a position to rack up goals as they possibly could have been.

 

[MXD]

My principal doubt about Brett Hull is whether we even bother about him if, during each of his three big years, he scores 10 less goals, gets 15 more assists and play better two-way hockey.

The above would ultimately made him a better (or, less flawed at least) hockey player.

Firsov is actually trending a bit down as far as I'm concerned, mostly due to longevity. Well, other factors too, but more sustained longevity (regardless of whether it comes at the beginning or at the end) would've alleviated the issues. I had him pretty high in that group though : it basically went Benedict, Firsov, Goalies, Wingers, Dit Clapper.

That's an awful round. Lots of goalies (but not the right one); Lots of Wingers (but not ALL the right ones, and the ones who probably should be there don't stack up to the goalies)... And Dit Clapper, whose biggest redeeming value is playing a long time and accruing very little success until joined by players better than him in a league that was getting weaker and weaker as a whole.

 

[Batis]

#2 on that list Ulf Sterner does have some playing time against AHL player when he was 23 and later in his career in London with some other North American players.

Sure but let us remember that Sterner during his AHL season put up similar numbers as Jean Ratelle did at the same age on the same team the year before.

How is 44 points in 52 games for a rookie bad? That's essentially the same stat line as Jean Ratelle got on the same team the year before (46 points in 57 games).

Ratelle was born the year before Sterner, so the comparison is very fair, apart from the fact that Ratelle was already an experienced NHL player, while Sterner was playing in a foreign system, in a foreign country, as the first person ever to do this in NA.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

My principal doubt about Brett Hull is whether we even bother about him if, during each of his three big years, he scores 10 less goals, gets 15 more assists and play better two-way hockey.

The above would ultimately made him a better (or, less flawed at least) hockey player.

Firsov is actually trending a bit down as far as I'm concerned, mostly due to longevity. Well, other factors too, but more sustained longevity (regardless of whether it comes at the beginning or at the end) would've alleviated the issues. I had him pretty high in that group though : it basically went Benedict, Firsov, Goalies, Wingers, Dit Clapper.

That's an awful round. Lots of goalies (but not the right one); Lots of Wingers (but not ALL the right ones, and the ones who probably should be there don't stack up to the goalies)... And Dit Clapper, whose biggest redeeming value is playing a long time and accruing very little success until joined by players better than him in a league that was getting weaker and weaker as a whole.

You raise a fair point in your first paragraph. Hull's trump card is being the best remaining goal scorer; a crucial skill, but not the only crucial skill. A redeeming point in his favour is that he did become a more well-rounded player late in his career. You'd expect this type of player to just be a PP specialist by his late 30's, but Hull was surprisingly productive at ES right until the end. Albeit, in a situation where he could be deployed favourably on a deep Detroit roster.