Tretiak

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
same reason Fetisov doesn't get mentioned with the top Dmen. Fetisov was probably better than Bourque, which means top 5, yet guys like Robinson and Park get far more mention.

I'm not sure if Tretiak was better or worse than a Hall, Dryden or Fuhr, but he is definitely more important. Tretiak was the first goalie to have positional specialized training. The Soviets were far ahead of North American in training. We basically just took shots on our goalies until we copied some of the training that Tretiak was doing.

No one would think Fetisov was better than Bourque all-time. Fetisov is no better than top 10 all-time and that's being generous. We know he's behind, Orr, Harvey, Shore, Bourque, Potvin, Lidstrom, Kelly, Robinson, Chelios and maybe even Coffey. That's 10 right there. That leaves him fighting it out with Park, Pilote and co. I have no problem with him placed there, but not ahead of Bourque.
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,206
17,561
Connecticut
He was/is under-rated.



Remember that scene from High Plains Drifter when Eastwood walks into the Saloon, orders a beer and a bottle, some Goof challenges him & he replys with "a lot faster than you'll ever be"?. Remember?... That was Vlad the Impaler. Dryden was a joke amongst the Red Army Team. Tretiak was & forever will be one of if not the best Stone Cold Killers of all time. A REAL player. Those teams had more respect for Gerry Cheevers playing on a WHA All Star Team with Bobby Hull and a bunch of Euros than they ever had for Dryden, Park, White, Clarkie & Espo. Tretiak even confirmed it by saying in his book that "Cheevers was the best I ever saw" and went on to redicule Ken Dryden specifically. ... .Even amongst NHL'ers of the time, Dryden wasnt much better than average. IMHO, Dryden, like Hasek. is grossly over-rated. Anyone who has ever played at the highest levels will be only to happy to confirm it... Im waiting.

One, a 1X brilliant performance in the spring of 71 and a Legend is born huh?. Effn' Montrealers'.. If God had Wings.

You lost a little credibility with Hasek comment.

As for Espo, though Soviets had little respect for him, they still couldn't stop him in the Summit Series.
 

Chairman Maouth

Retired Staff
Apr 29, 2009
25,711
11,934
Comox Valley
Actually, this is quite wrong. The Soviets did almost no training for goaltending. Tretiak developed most their training methods personally. This was also one reason they had such poor goaltending aside from Tretiak. Its true that Dryden saw some of Tretiak's training methods and copied them though. Tretiak talks about it in his book in some detail.
I believe it's probably true that the Soviet team at the time was under-funded. I saw them play as a 10-year old in 1972 in Vancouver for the Summit Series. I was sitting about 6 rows behind their bench and one of the things I'll never forget is their uniforms. The numbers on their backs looked like they were hand-cut with dull scissors by the team member's themselves. The numbers were also hand-sewn on in a very amateurish fashion. I remember thinking at the time that my pee-wee uniform was better made than these guy's uniforms.

Tretiak was a very good goaltender. Very acrobatic with lightning-quick reflexes.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
No one would think Fetisov was better than Bourque all-time. Fetisov is no better than top 10 all-time and that's being generous. We know he's behind, Orr, Harvey, Shore, Bourque, Potvin, Lidstrom, Kelly, Robinson, Chelios and maybe even Coffey. That's 10 right there. That leaves him fighting it out with Park, Pilote and co. I have no problem with him placed there, but not ahead of Bourque.

Not all of us "know" Fetisov is behind guys like Robinson and Chelios. He was in all likelihood the best defenseman in the world for the first half of the 1980s.

I do agree that ranking him over Bourque is going too far though - at best, Fetisov is like Bourque with a prime that is half as long.
 

Zine

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
11,958
1,774
Rostov-on-Don
Yeah no doubt Dryden didn't play well against the Russians........ever. Why that is was explained pretty well in a post above me, and I agree. The style the Russians played exploited Dryden's weaknesses while Tony Esposito was a butterfly goalie whose style suited their game better.

But Dryden does have one thing going for him that Tretiak does not. We saw how great he was against NHL competition. We never saw that with Tretiak. I know this whole thing about "what ifs" has gotten him a little more love but we can only project how he'd do in a 50-60 game season year after year against the best players in the world. We know how Dryden did it. We don't know how Tretiak would have lasted.

Also keep in mind, Dryden not only was selected for 5 First team all-stars, he was also 2nd (1972), 4th (1973) and 4th (1976) and 10th (1978) in Hart voting in his career. Hard to get any more Hart votes than that when Guy Lafleur is on your team though but he still fared well. So while I will admit Dryden had an excellent team in front of him, the people who actually watched the games at that time felt he was valuable to their success.

And we are forgetting about 1972. Yes, he had some dull moments in the Summit Series, but when push came to shove he was better in the clutch than Tretiak. Yes I will forgive Tretiak for only being 20 years old then, but Dryden had only a year and a half of NHL play under his belt as well

....or one could say Dryden benefited from playing in the NHL because it suited his game.
A compelling argument can be made that Dryden would've looked very average in the Soviet League. On the other hand, Tretiak's weaknesses weren't as easily exploitable as Drydens. Tretiak was able to excel in both NHL and Soviet styles. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that Tretiak would have had difficulty in the NHL.
Tretiak was simply a better and more well-rounded goaltender than Dryden.
 

RabbinsDuck

Registered User
Feb 1, 2008
4,761
12
Brighton, MI
No one would think Fetisov was better than Bourque all-time. Fetisov is no better than top 10 all-time and that's being generous. We know he's behind, Orr, Harvey, Shore, Bourque, Potvin, Lidstrom, Kelly, Robinson, Chelios and maybe even Coffey. That's 10 right there. That leaves him fighting it out with Park, Pilote and co. I have no problem with him placed there, but not ahead of Bourque.

I have Fetisov ahead of Robinson and behind Potvin and really think those two players are very comparable to Fetisov - great peak and prime, while remaining a good (not great) defenseman later in their careers.

I was just looking at Canada Cup results recently:

15p in 16gp - Fetisov
17p in 24gp - Bourque
4p in 24gp - Robinson
16p in 14gp - Potvin
8p in 19gp - Chelios
24p in 25gp - Coffey
 

Mothra

The Groovy Guru
Jul 16, 2002
7,717
2
Parts Unknown
Visit site
Yeah no doubt Dryden didn't play well against the Russians........ever. Why that is was explained pretty well in a post above me, and I agree. The style the Russians played exploited Dryden's weaknesses while Tony Esposito was a butterfly goalie whose style suited their game better.

But Dryden does have one thing going for him that Tretiak does not. We saw how great he was against NHL competition. We never saw that with Tretiak. I know this whole thing about "what ifs" has gotten him a little more love but we can only project how he'd do in a 50-60 game season year after year against the best players in the world. We know how Dryden did it. We don't know how Tretiak would have lasted.

Also keep in mind, Dryden not only was selected for 5 First team all-stars, he was also 2nd (1972), 4th (1973) and 4th (1976) and 10th (1978) in Hart voting in his career. Hard to get any more Hart votes than that when Guy Lafleur is on your team though but he still fared well. So while I will admit Dryden had an excellent team in front of him, the people who actually watched the games at that time felt he was valuable to their success.And we are forgetting about 1972. Yes, he had some dull moments in the Summit Series, but when push came to shove he was better in the clutch than Tretiak. Yes I will forgive Tretiak for only being 20 years old then, but Dryden had only a year and a half of NHL play under his belt as well

Dryden gets undervalued too often IMO....we saw what happened when he sat out a season. He just seemed like impending doom for the other team
 

jcbio11

Registered User
Aug 17, 2008
2,785
457
Bratislava
Yeah no doubt Dryden didn't play well against the Russians........ever. Why that is was explained pretty well in a post above me, and I agree. The style the Russians played exploited Dryden's weaknesses while Tony Esposito was a butterfly goalie whose style suited their game better.

But Dryden does have one thing going for him that Tretiak does not. We saw how great he was against NHL competition. We never saw that with Tretiak. I know this whole thing about "what ifs" has gotten him a little more love but we can only project how he'd do in a 50-60 game season year after year against the best players in the world. We know how Dryden did it. We don't know how Tretiak would have lasted.

Also keep in mind, Dryden not only was selected for 5 First team all-stars, he was also 2nd (1972), 4th (1973) and 4th (1976) and 10th (1978) in Hart voting in his career. Hard to get any more Hart votes than that when Guy Lafleur is on your team though but he still fared well. So while I will admit Dryden had an excellent team in front of him, the people who actually watched the games at that time felt he was valuable to their success.

And we are forgetting about 1972. Yes, he had some dull moments in the Summit Series, but when push came to shove he was better in the clutch than Tretiak. Yes I will forgive Tretiak for only being 20 years old then, but Dryden had only a year and a half of NHL play under his belt as well

I am sorry but NHL of Tretiak's and Dryden's time is not 90s onward NHL. You can't say the NHL had the best players, Soviets had a strong league, Czechoslovakia and Sweden as well. Euros were not integrated into NHL's hockey yet. So this argument is invalid. That's like saying we never know what Dryden would have done vs the soviets in their league or vs the other euro hockey powers in the World Championships. And actually from the sample size we have, he didn't do well at all vs the soviets.
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
I am sorry but NHL of Tretiak's and Dryden's time is not 90s onward NHL. You can't say the NHL had the best players, Soviets had a strong league, Czechoslovakia and Sweden as well. Euros were not integrated into NHL's hockey yet. So this argument is invalid. That's like saying we never know what Dryden would have done vs the soviets in their league or vs the other euro hockey powers in the World Championships. And actually from the sample size we have, he didn't do well at all vs the soviets.

I will admit for one that Dryden was not good against the Russians. But keep in mind, that is a small sample size. We have the first two games in the 1972 Series, the 1975 Red Army game and the 2nd game of the 1979 Challenge Cup. Those are when he played noticeably bad against the Russians - 4 games. It can be a little bit of a knock on him, but I think the sample size of how great Dryden was is bigger than Tretiak's.

And in the 1970s the Swedes, if they were good enough, could make the NHL. The Russians and Czechs could not, but there is still little doubt that the NHL was the cream of the crop in the world even in the 1970s. Also, by my count, Dryden was 3-3-1 against Tretiak in the big tournaments. So while his international resume isn't sparkling, it isn't as if Tretiak blows him out of the water in head to head matches

Dryden gets undervalued too often IMO....we saw what happened when he sat out a season. He just seemed like impending doom for the other team

Yes, 1973-'74 is a perfect example. The Habs had very much the same team in 1974 as they did in 1973. Except for one thing, Dryden sat out the whole year. The Habs finished 4th in the NHL with 99 points and were bounced out of the first round.

The next year Dryden is back and they tied for the lead in points (113) and made the semi final. Then 4 straight Cups, all with Dryden. There is little doubt he was integral to that team. When you are getting Hart trophy votes with Guy Lafleur on your team the public thinks you are doing something right.

Not all of us "know" Fetisov is behind guys like Robinson and Chelios. He was in all likelihood the best defenseman in the world for the first half of the 1980s.

I do agree that ranking him over Bourque is going too far though - at best, Fetisov is like Bourque with a prime that is half as long.

But you are getting into "what ifs" when it comes to Fetisov. We saw how Bourque and Chelios and Robinson and co. did year after year after year in an 80 game schedule. We didn't with Fetisov. Just like we didn't with Makarov in the 1980s either. We can only speculate that over a full season after full season he would have been as valuable as Bossy. Its tricky. But when you look at Chelios vs. Fetisov the big thing is longevity too. Chelios stayed great for so long.
 

raleh

Registered User
Oct 17, 2005
1,764
9
Dartmouth, NS
I think an argument can be made for Tretiak being 6-8 all time. I don't see much of a case for him being better than Sawchuck, Plante, Roy, Hasek, or Hall.

Same deal with Fetisov. Can't compare him to Orr, Harvey, Shore or Bourque. But to me, he's at least in the conversation with Lidstrom and Potvin. In fact, I would think his peak is closing in on Potvin/Bourque levels and is slightly ahead of Lidstrom.
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
I think an argument can be made for Tretiak being 6-8 all time. I don't see much of a case for him being better than Sawchuck, Plante, Roy, Hasek, or Hall.

Brodeur? Broda? Parent? You'd put Tretiak ahead of these guys too?
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
You lost a little credibility with Hasek comment.

Im OK with that, and I do realize Im in the minority when it comes to Hasek. He was a great goalie, numbers to back it up, no question about it. Bright guy, very likeable. Simply put, I didnt like the way he played the position; its more a philosophical and executional criticism. I saw a lot of glaring holes in his game. Ultimately, he stopped the puck, and thats what counts. I just didnt like the way he went about it. I consider him the "luckiest" goalie to have ever played the game.

Consistently lucky. :laugh:
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
Same deal with Fetisov. Can't compare him to Orr, Harvey, Shore or Bourque. But to me, he's at least in the conversation with Lidstrom and Potvin. In fact, I would think his peak is closing in on Potvin/Bourque levels and is slightly ahead of Lidstrom.

Well we can make it interesting here. Let's go back to the 1980s.

Where does Fetisov win a Norris for sure? Even the years that Langway won them he was beating Bourque. Then there's Coffey's Norrises and then Bourque's. Does he ever win one? Not there. Maybe if the stars align in 1982 he beats Wilson's big year. But in 1981 I doubt he wins against Carlyle since Potvin somehow didn't even.

But let's look at the 1990s. Yes for the first couple of years there is an adjustment period but he didn't receive a single Norris vote in his 30s in the 1990s. Not one. Now, as much as people criticize Coffey he still did well in his 30s for Norris voting, winning one in 1995. Bourque did as well. Chelios did. Lidstrom has. Potvin only played until 35 years old but he fared better in his 30s too. Robinson did better in his 30s and to an extent so did Park. So if we witnessed first hand that these guys aged far better than Fetisov, the question here is why do we assume with little evidence that he would have been better than these guys in his 20s?
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
Im OK with that, and I do realize Im in the minority when it comes to Hasek. He was a great goalie, numbers to back it up, no question about it. Bright guy, very likeable. Simply put, I didnt like the way he played the position; its more a philosophical and executional criticism. I saw a lot of glaring holes in his game. Ultimately, he stopped the puck, and thats what counts. I just didnt like the way he went about it. I consider him the "luckiest" goalie to have ever played the game.

Consistently lucky. :laugh:

Oh yes, I am sure we all agree there were a lot of holes in his game. Actually the opposition saw this as well. Too bad no one was ever able to put the puck through those holes though. My thought on Hasek is that he may very well have been the most psychologically intimidating goalie in hockey history. Before the puck dropped he psyched teams out. He did this more than Roy.

And we all kept waiting an waiting and waiting for teams to figure him out. When would be the day that he would start letting in 6-7 goals a game by being "unlucky"? It just never happened with him. 6 Vezinas don't lie. While his style wasn't traditional, he still knew how to stop the puck. How he did it we don't know but eventually when you are "lucky" time and time again the question begs...........are you really lucky or just good?

Tim Thomas is a good example of a player we can monitor this season. He's had two Vezinas and they were with a season in between where he lost his #1 spot. If he has another remarkable season then I fail to see how someone would think his style also is "lucky". He is Hasek-lite in many ways
 

BraveCanadian

Registered User
Jun 30, 2010
14,521
3,360
Oh yes, I am sure we all agree there were a lot of holes in his game. Actually the opposition saw this as well. Too bad no one was ever able to put the puck through those holes though. My thought on Hasek is that he may very well have been the most psychologically intimidating goalie in hockey history. Before the puck dropped he psyched teams out. He did this more than Roy.

And we all kept waiting an waiting and waiting for teams to figure him out. When would be the day that he would start letting in 6-7 goals a game by being "unlucky"? It just never happened with him. 6 Vezinas don't lie. While his style wasn't traditional, he still knew how to stop the puck. How he did it we don't know but eventually when you are "lucky" time and time again the question begs...........are you really lucky or just good?

Tim Thomas is a good example of a player we can monitor this season. He's had two Vezinas and they were with a season in between where he lost his #1 spot. If he has another remarkable season then I fail to see how someone would think his style also is "lucky". He is Hasek-lite in many ways

To me Hasek is kind of the Gretzky of goaltenders.

No one can accurately describe why their styles worked so incredibly while they did so many things "wrong". They can't even describe it themselves.

They both just had an innate sense of what to do and when that was on a completely different level than others.
 

greatgazoo

Registered User
Jan 26, 2008
1,479
2
Cobourg
If the '75 New Year's Eve game versus the Habs is any indication of how good Tretriak was in his prime, then he would've been an NHL all-star. No doubt about it. He was awesome that night!
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
Watching your team play against Hasek in the 90s was spending the entire evening yelling "How did you miss that!!!???" at your TV.

Maybe your on to something there. Explains why I dont "appreciate" him more?. :laugh:
 

jcbio11

Registered User
Aug 17, 2008
2,785
457
Bratislava
Not all of us "know" Fetisov is behind guys like Robinson and Chelios. He was in all likelihood the best defenseman in the world for the first half of the 1980s.

I do agree that ranking him over Bourque is going too far though - at best, Fetisov is like Bourque with a prime that is half as long.

That's fair enough.

But yeah, Chelios over Fetisov a sure thing? Not in my books...
 

VMBM

And it didn't even bring me down
Sep 24, 2008
3,797
754
Helsinki, Finland
If I remember correctly, during the broadcast for the 1984 Canada Cup semifinal between Canada and USSR, the color commentator Darryl Sittler calls Fetisov 'probably the best defenseman in the world'*. That is just one opinion, but an educated one (Sittler having played against Fetisov and the other 'contenders').

I also remember Wayne Gretzky especially mentioning him (of all the USSR players) during the 1982 World Championships.

I think he really was that good in the 1980s - i.e. better than Coffey, on the same level with Bourque - although we'll never know for sure... or will we? :)

* although Fetisov was injured and didn't actually play in the tournament
 
Last edited:

Zine

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
11,958
1,774
Rostov-on-Don
Well we can make it interesting here. Let's go back to the 1980s.

Where does Fetisov win a Norris for sure? Even the years that Langway won them he was beating Bourque. Then there's Coffey's Norrises and then Bourque's. Does he ever win one? Not there. Maybe if the stars align in 1982 he beats Wilson's big year. But in 1981 I doubt he wins against Carlyle since Potvin somehow didn't even.

Problem. Your question is being asked under the assumption that Fetisov wasn't on the level of Bourque, Coffey or Potvin.
You want to go back to the 80's? Fine. Read contemporary articles and sources from the 1980s. Fetisov is regularly considered one of, if not the the best defenseman of that era.
And simply watching his play at the various tournaments vs NHLers verifies this. He was always on a level equal (if not better) than Bourque.

I do think Bourque was a better career player. However, in terms of peak performance, Fetisov is right there with Bourque.
 

Zine

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
11,958
1,774
Rostov-on-Don
But let's look at the 1990s. Yes for the first couple of years there is an adjustment period but he didn't receive a single Norris vote in his 30s in the 1990s. Not one. Now, as much as people criticize Coffey he still did well in his 30s for Norris voting, winning one in 1995. Bourque did as well. Chelios did. Lidstrom has. Potvin only played until 35 years old but he fared better in his 30s too. Robinson did better in his 30s and to an extent so did Park. So if we witnessed first hand that these guys aged far better than Fetisov, the question here is why do we assume with little evidence that he would have been better than these guys in his 20s?


Its not rocket science why Bourque, Robinson, Potvin, etc aged better than Fetisov.
Because of obvious reasons, Soviet players were run down empty versions of their former selves by the time they reached 30's. It was a familiar and common characteristic of all Soviet trained players.

Why do you think Tikhonov let Fetisov, Kasatonov, KLM, leave for the NHL while others had to defect? Because by the early 1990s he knew that Fetisov and co. were essentially kaput as high level national team members.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
1985

Problem. Your question is being asked under the assumption that Fetisov wasn't on the level of Bourque, Coffey or Potvin.
You want to go back to the 80's? Fine. Read contemporary articles and sources from the 1980s. Fetisov is regularly considered one of, if not the the best defenseman of that era.
And simply watching his play at the various tournaments vs NHLers verifies this. He was always on a level equal (if not better) than Bourque.

I do think Bourque was a better career player. However, in terms of peak performance, Fetisov is right there with Bourque.

Until the 1985 car accident that claimed the life of Fetisov's younger brother the only issues in the Bourque / Fetisov debate were the lengths of the respective seasons and constant level of challenging competition.

Post accident Vyacheslav Fetisov was never at the previous level. Not the same fluid or explosive movement.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
If I remember correctly, during the broadcast for the 1984 Canada Cup semifinal between Canada and USSR, the color commentator Darryl Sittler calls Fetisov 'probably the best defenseman in the world'*. That is just one opinion, but an educated one (Sittler having played against Fetisov and the other 'contenders').

I also remember Wayne Gretzky especially mentioning him (of all the USSR players) during the 1982 World Championships.

I think he really was that good in the 1980s - i.e. better than Coffey, on the same level with Bourque - although we'll never know for sure... or will we? :)

* although Fetisov was injured and didn't actually play in the tournament

Red Fisher, the great Montreal hockey writer also wrote in the early 80s that "most people" thought Fetisov was the best defenseman in the world. I could see Fetisov winning any of the Norrises from 1981-1984, and probably more than 1. Ray Bourque was very good in the early 80s, but not as good as he'd become by the late 80s.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->