What if Mario had missed?

[Zine]

Zine: you come away still saying the last 3 olympics,the summit series and the 81 Canada cup are the only tournaments that you put any real weight in (the tremendous odds you were up against being cited for you granting honour to the Soviets win in 81))I'll always disagree with this of course.The advantages we had at those tournaments were more then offset in terms of the huge advantages the Soviet teams had by being able to prepare as a team year-round.That advantage is unmeasureable,i still don't think russian fans have come to grasp with the reality of that yet, your teams had a tremendous advantage because of it and recent history has shown just how big an avantage it was.

The old Soviet teams were thouroghly prepared to play on any rink,at any time under any circumstances and it showed in their play(which was tremendous in all honesty).In 84 and 87...............they just got slightly outplayed without question.Hey!! no embarrasment or need to deny this,you were facing Canadian teams with a great amount of talent.there is no disgrace in coming up short against teams that feature players like gretzky,Mario,Bossy etc.You could'nt expect to win them all against that kind of opposition.it was inevitable that you were not going to be able to beat our teams all the time considering the talent available to us (eventhough we could'nt take that talent and team build like you guys) our players were just too good and they showed that.

You could have had the tournament anywhere under any rules and you surely would not have beaten Canada all the time, the talent at our disposal at that time just makes domination against us impossible,even for those Soviet teams.I'm sorry but considering the realities i've just pointed out,no serious Canada fan is going to give you glory for 81 while discounting 87 and 84.If we are going to bend on 87 and 84 you'll have to bend on 81 and strike it off as anything other then a fluke win but i can't see you doing that right? Then don't expect us to please.



While you say you don't say Canada cheated (you say both did'nt) you still have difficulty giving legitimacy to victories both teams played against us when both sent their best teams and players except 1981.this is still a problem to me.

But i think it's a problem that is un-fixable.You are going to think the way you think and i am going to think the way i think.

You think certain wins are legitimate and certain ones are'nt and i think EVERY win in best on best competitions are legitimate,be they the Czechs in 98,Swedes in 06 Canada in 04, or Soviets in 81.

And i have to tell you straight out here, i think my attitude is not only more reasonable but more honourable too.

But i'm not going to be able to convince you or others of this and i'm just going to have to live with that. At least you're not calling all of Canada's victories the result of cheating.

There is at least some middle ground with you,i don't sense this total unflexibility and out-right lunacy that i'm reading from some of your fans.

No we don’t see eye to eye, but I do agree that there is some common ground.

This is my last post on this topic, but there’s one thing that still confuses me about your reasoning. -- You don’t give much credence to the world championships because not every team sent their “A” squad (although most did)….that’s fine, I can understand and respect that. However, you get defensive when people don’t give Canada their props for the CC wins. But if you notice, 2 out of the 4 Canadian CC titles where when the Soviets did not send their best teams (’76 and ’91). I’m not talking about missing a top player here and there; both those Soviet squads were missing large quantities of their ‘go-to’ guys and team leaders. That, in itself, would nullify the ’76 and ’91 CC as a true best vs. best series – and, by YOUR own standards, should therefore not be considered legitimate.

My standards are very honorable. Every team should have their best squads --- AND there has to be a significant level of neutrality involved.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

No we don’t see eye to eye, but I do agree that there is some common ground.

This is my last post on this topic, but there’s one thing that still confuses me about your reasoning. -- You don’t give much credence to the world championships because not every team sent their “A†squad (although most did)….that’s fine, I can understand and respect that. However, you get defensive when people don’t give Canada their props for the CC wins. But if you notice, 2 out of the 4 Canadian CC titles where when the Soviets did not send their best teams (’76 and ’91). I’m not talking about missing a top player here and there; both those Soviet squads were missing large quantities of their ‘go-to’ guys and team leaders. That, in itself, would nullify the ’76 and ’91 CC as a true best vs. best series – and, by YOUR own standards, should therefore not be considered legitimate.

My standards are very honorable. Every team should have their best squads --- AND there has to be a significant level of neutrality involved.

I think just about any tournament result can be tainted by things such as which players are available, how much prep time was involved, which rules and ice were used ect. I guess people have to judge what level of tainting they are willing to accept. IMO, yes Canada had an advantage in the Canada Cups due to the tournament always being played in Canada, but IMO it was offset by the fact the Soviets had much more prep time. Although it was far from perfect, it was easily the best barometer available to judge the best National side, at least in 81, 84 and 87.

 

[espo*]

No we don’t see eye to eye, but I do agree that there is some common ground.

This is my last post on this topic, but there’s one thing that still confuses me about your reasoning. -- You don’t give much credence to the world championships because not every team sent their “A†squad (although most did)….that’s fine, I can understand and respect that. However, you get defensive when people don’t give Canada their props for the CC wins. But if you notice, 2 out of the 4 Canadian CC titles where when the Soviets did not send their best teams (’76 and ’91). I’m not talking about missing a top player here and there; both those Soviet squads were missing large quantities of their ‘go-to’ guys and team leaders. That, in itself, would nullify the ’76 and ’91 CC as a true best vs. best series – and, by YOUR own standards, should therefore not be considered legitimate.

My standards are very honorable. Every team should have their best squads --- AND there has to be a significant level of neutrality involved.

Yes,i'll have to bend on 91 and 76.You did not have your best players for various reasons and therefore the Russian entries have to be judged accordingly. I'll say for 76 and 91 not having the best Russian squads available means nothing more then Canada had the best team at those tournaments,tournaments that did not feature our best competition(Soviet team).

Granted.

84 and 87 however, the Soviet teams simply lost, much like Canada did in 81.

Is this not also agreed upon?

 

[YMB29]

yes Canada had an advantage in the Canada Cups due to the tournament always being played in Canada, but IMO it was offset by the fact the Soviets had much more prep time. Although it was far from perfect, it was easily the best barometer available to judge the best National side, at least in 81, 84 and 87.

How do you measure if something is offset or not. Canadian advantages cannot be offset by your perceived Soviet super preperation.

The guy who has done nothing but whine since he entered this thread telling people they are whiners.

When did I whine?

84 and 87 however, the Soviet teams simply lost, much like Canada did in 81.

No it is not simply lost.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

When you look at the whole picture he is. One player won't make a difference in the outcome of tournaments over the years.

Ignorance is your problem.
We already talked about Hlinka and the Stastnys.
For the rest, you assume that if they played in the NHL, they did not play in the World Championships. All the players you mentioned played in the World Championships, maybe not every year, but the Soviets beat their teams both with them and without them in the line up.

The simple fact of the matter is, Russia was competing with the best roster possible. Other nations were not. That is an advantage. Please explain to me how that is not an advantage.

 

[YMB29]

How do you know? Some players might have not played because of injury or other reasons. There really is not a perfect roster. Most of the years the European teams had their "best" roster in the World Championships and I told you one or two players would not have changed the outcome, especially since that outcome was consistent.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

How do you know? Some players might have not played because of injury or other reasons. There really is not a perfect roster. Most of the years the European teams had their "best" roster in the World Championships and I told you one or two players would not have changed the outcome, especially since that outcome was consistent.

Your avoiding the question. I'm not talking about the outcome. I'm saying that when all teams but one are missing key players, that one team has an advantage. You say that is false, how is that possible?

 

[YMB29]

How could you not be talking about the outcome when you are saying that the Soviets had an advantage over other teams that allowed them to win so much. Don't make an assumption that all teams but one were missing key players year after year. When you are talking about missing players you have to know how important they are to their team and how they could affect the team's performance. I don't have all the statistics on this (do you?), maybe the Soviets had an advantage over some teams in some years, but it likely was so insignificant that it does not matter, especially since the Soviets were missing stars in many competions for various reasons too.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

How could you not be talking about the outcome when you are saying that the Soviets had an advantage over other teams that allowed them to win so much. Don't make an assumption that all teams but one were missing key players year after year. When you are talking about missing players you have to know how important they are to their team and how they could affect the team's performance. I don't have all the statistics on this (do you?), maybe the Soviets had an advantage over some teams in some years, but it likely was so insignificant that it does not matter, especially since the Soviets were missing stars in many competions for various reasons too.

Because the outcome is never certain. Think of it like Vegas odds, the Czechslovakians in 82 would have much higher odds with the Stastny brothers, Hnlinka and Bubla, then without them. They still wouldn't be favoured to win, but they'd have a better chance.

But even more so, since unlike an injury, this wasn't a one year thing. Once players left, many of them weren't back until after their prime, if at all. So over a prolonged period the odds were tilted in Russia's favour. Thus making analysis of just how good Russia was flawed. Facing top competition became the rarer occurance during the 1980's. Would they have lost more if the European compitition was the best it could be? We can't know that answer. But, we can safely say that the odds of it occuring would be higher, whether slightly or significantly, although I'd say significantly due to the high caliber of players like Peter Stastny, Jari Kurri, Pelle Lindburgh, Hakan Loob and Kent Nilsson.

So, in conclussion, I can't tell you what the outcome of any changes would be, but, given that Czechslovakia won in 85 without the Stastny's and Sweden won in 87 without many top players, it is reasonable to assume that they could have garnered more victories with a stronger team.

That's all I'm saying, that teams with the best players possible are more likely to achieve success. I don't see how that is so contentious that you feel the need to debate it.

 

[Your old Jofa helmet]

Oh my God it's been 15 years since the breakup of the Soviet Union and still there are people who simply live in the Soviet Union and have soviet mentality. The whole soviet higher professional sports was based on cheating. It was clear then, it has become even more obvious now. Yes, there were illegal substances (but perhaps we lose to Eastern Germany in this respect). Yes, the players were professionals, received money and privileges, that the ordinary people could just dream about, but still they were considered "amateurs" and their working histories included reports that they worked as miners, plant workers or whatever. Yes, the best promising talents were stolen by army teams because they had to serve in the army that's why teams that had connection to the military could just come and take your player. That was the reason why CSKA was actually the soviet national team - it had the best players from the whole country. And yes, there were fixed games and pre-paid results - tons of them. And there were paid refs.

You see, it was not just sports, it was politics. We just couldnt's lose to capitalists. And if we lost, then we made it clear, that it wasn't our fault - the refs were biased, the environment was hostile ans so on. Even now the players that fail to succeed in the western countries blame everyone but themselves. The most common excuse is that the coach just hates russians and doesn't let them play. The papers are filled with cheap propaganda about how russian stars are obviously better, but the NHL just has a plan to prevent them from playing their best. There was even some program when they said, that the loss to the USA in Lake Placid was not that bad, because the americans were not just students, but nearly hockey stars.

Cand stand the hypocrisy. The Soviet Union was a great hockey state. But clearly not the best. Just deal with it...

 

[YMB29]

What the hell are you talking about? You are just throwing out accusations that have no basis. Don't make yourself look stupid.

Because the outcome is never certain. Think of it like Vegas odds, the Czechslovakians in 82 would have much higher odds with the Stastny brothers, Hnlinka and Bubla, then without them. They still wouldn't be favoured to win, but they'd have a better chance.

But even more so, since unlike an injury, this wasn't a one year thing. Once players left, many of them weren't back until after their prime, if at all. So over a prolonged period the odds were tilted in Russia's favour. Thus making analysis of just how good Russia was flawed. Facing top competition became the rarer occurance during the 1980's. Would they have lost more if the European compitition was the best it could be? We can't know that answer. But, we can safely say that the odds of it occuring would be higher, whether slightly or significantly, although I'd say significantly due to the high caliber of players like Peter Stastny, Jari Kurri, Pelle Lindburgh, Hakan Loob and Kent Nilsson.

So, in conclussion, I can't tell you what the outcome of any changes would be, but, given that Czechslovakia won in 85 without the Stastny's and Sweden won in 87 without many top players, it is reasonable to assume that they could have garnered more victories with a stronger team.

That's all I'm saying, that teams with the best players possible are more likely to achieve success. I don't see how that is so contentious that you feel the need to debate it.

I understand what you are saying, but you are being too picky here; you are overstating both the number of players missing and the significance, while ignoring any absenses the Soviets might have had.
What top players did not play for Sweden in WC 87?

 

[JonathanK]

after watching the goal, what if the guy who had hooked the russian trying to get back in the play had been called? watch from about 5:45 till the end to see what i mean

Click Here

 

[YMB29]

This was already discussed in this thread and here:
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=301052

 

[Karamahti*]

What top players did not play for Sweden in WC 87?

I´m not an expert, but atleast Kent Nilsson, Mats Näslund, Kjell Dahlin, Ulf Samuelsson, Michael Thelven, Börje Salming, Pelle Eklund, Tomas Jonsson, Willy Lindström, Thomas Steen, Fredrik Olausson and Patrik Sundström were missing from tre kronor. Did you have a point here somewhere?

 

[YMB29]

You just wrote that without checking? I think a fair way of comparing who could not play for Sweden because of the NHL in 87 is to compare the World Championship roster and the Canada Cup roster:
WC
CCup
Of those you mentioned only Jonsson, Thelven, Naslund, Nilsson were missing from the WC roster while being on the Canada Cup team and playing in the NHL (the Sammuelson you see is not Ulf).
While Loob, Sandstrom, Molin, and some others were not on the CCup roster but were on the WC roster.
So you can't say that the WC roster was weaker.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

What's more important than who was missing in '87 is, who was missing in '86 and '88?

I understand what you are saying, but you are being too picky here; you are overstating both the number of players missing and the significance, while ignoring any absenses the Soviets might have had.

Balderis is the only perminant absence the Russians had. Sure, injuries happen, but that's an equal playing field. Other countries had many high quality players leave or be unable to compete for one reason or another. Russia lost one. That's not picky. It's a cold hard fact. Why do you resist this so much?

 

[pappyline]

Oh my God it's been 15 years since the breakup of the Soviet Union and still there are people who simply live in the Soviet Union and have soviet mentality. The whole soviet higher professional sports was based on cheating. It was clear then, it has become even more obvious now. Yes, there were illegal substances (but perhaps we lose to Eastern Germany in this respect). Yes, the players were professionals, received money and privileges, that the ordinary people could just dream about, but still they were considered "amateurs" and their working histories included reports that they worked as miners, plant workers or whatever. Yes, the best promising talents were stolen by army teams because they had to serve in the army that's why teams that had connection to the military could just come and take your player. That was the reason why CSKA was actually the soviet national team - it had the best players from the whole country. And yes, there were fixed games and pre-paid results - tons of them. And there were paid refs.

You see, it was not just sports, it was politics. We just couldnt's lose to capitalists. And if we lost, then we made it clear, that it wasn't our fault - the refs were biased, the environment was hostile ans so on. Even now the players that fail to succeed in the western countries blame everyone but themselves. The most common excuse is that the coach just hates russians and doesn't let them play. The papers are filled with cheap propaganda about how russian stars are obviously better, but the NHL just has a plan to prevent them from playing their best. There was even some program when they said, that the loss to the USA in Lake Placid was not that bad, because the americans were not just students, but nearly hockey stars.

Cand stand the hypocrisy. The Soviet Union was a great hockey state. But clearly not the best. Just deal with it...

What a geat post!! YMB29 & Zine what is your response? Not your usual flipant response but a logical well thought out response.

 

[Karamahti*]

You just wrote that without checking? I think a fair way of comparing who could not play for Sweden because of the NHL in 87 is to compare the World Championship roster and the Canada Cup roster:
WC
CCup
Of those you mentioned only Jonsson, Thelven, Naslund, Nilsson were missing from the WC roster while being on the Canada Cup team and playing in the NHL (the Sammuelson you see is not Ulf).
While Loob, Sandstrom, Molin, and some others were not on the CCup roster but were on the WC roster.
So you can't say that the WC roster was weaker.

I couldn´t find Swedens 1987 WC roster anywhere so I had to rely on my memory and some educated guesses about who played and who didn´t. It doesn´t really matter though since you keep coming up with new excuses all the time. Only thing you proved is that tre kronor didn´t ice their best team for Canada Cup either. Why is it so hard for you to admit that other countries didn´t play with their best possible players and soviets did?

 

[Your old Jofa helmet]

only Jonsson, Thelven, Naslund, Nilsson

Only? Losing Naslund to Sweden was like losing the whole our KML line. Naslund and Nilsson were, perhaps the best Swedish players of the 80s so they had to play without their best players.

 

[Tighina]

YMB29, I am sorry but you are laughable at times, though I don't think you care anyway.
Your maintaining of the principle that NHL players do not need team cohesiveness because NHL hockey is "more individualistic" is so ignorant I am too bored to think of an epithet for it.
Your ignorance of opinions of coaches like Kulagin and Tarasov is pitiful in itself, and your dismissal of them is both pitiful and arrogant which is not a winning combination.
Your insistence on making Canadians recognize our wins in a tournament which Canada never iced their A team in is incomprehensible.
You crown all that with accusing me of making asumptions about you and immediately making assumptions about me. Silly ones, at that.
You will not top the list of the worthiest argument opponent I've ever had and you are doing Russian hockey and Russian fans a disservice here. Please stop.

 

[YMB29]

Balderis is the only perminant absence the Russians had. Sure, injuries happen, but that's an equal playing field. Other countries had many high quality players leave or be unable to compete for one reason or another. Russia lost one. That's not picky. It's a cold hard fact. Why do you resist this so much?

Balderis may be the best example but it does not mean he was the only one that did not make it for one reason or another. Tikhonov did not take players based on how successful their careers were, but based more on how good the player's form was in the time approaching a tournament. Which makes sense, but some will say that this bad (like it does not take into accouint experience). Many Soviet fans were always upset when players of their favorite club team, players who might have been among the best in the Soviet Union, did not make the national team for the reason stated above or any other. So one can also look on Soviet players' careers and say that some of the best Soviet players did not play at one time or another.

What a geat post!! YMB29 & Zine what is your response? Not your usual flipant response but a logical well thought out response

.
I already responded. What logical response? It is just baseless accusations.

I couldn´t find Swedens 1987 WC roster anywhere so I had to rely on my memory and some educated guesses about who played and who didn´t. It doesn´t really matter though since you keep coming up with new excuses all the time. Only thing you proved is that tre kronor didn´t ice their best team for Canada Cup either. Why is it so hard for you to admit that other countries didn´t play with their best possible players and soviets did?

I told you why. You get very picky because of a player or two and assume they would have been the difference. Also you assume that the Soviets had the best roster possible (and there is not really such a thing).
Well how come Sweden did not have the "best" possible roster for the Canada Cup when the NHL excuse does not apply?

Only? Losing Naslund to Sweden was like losing the whole our KML line. Naslund and Nilsson were, perhaps the best Swedish players of the 80s so they had to play without their best players.

How could one player equal a line? It is not like they were Sweden's only best players. By your logic, I could name any good Soviet player of the 80s that did not play in 87 and say the same thing.

YMB29, I am sorry but you are laughable at times, though I don't think you care anyway.

You are laughable with the stuff you say being contradicted by the Russian flag in your avatar.

Your maintaining of the principle that NHL players do not need team cohesiveness because NHL hockey is "more individualistic" is so ignorant I am too bored to think of an epithet for it.

I did not say don't need, I said not as much. Are you blind? When an NHL team is struggling, one of the first things a coach does is change up the lines. Why is that?

Your ignorance of opinions of coaches like Kulagin and Tarasov is pitiful in itself, and your dismissal of them is both pitiful and arrogant which is not a winning combination.

Your refusal to give the sources is lazy and ignorant.

Your insistence on making Canadians recognize our wins in a tournament which Canada never iced their A team in is incomprehensible.

You are incomprehensible. Canadains must send their best players, for a tournament to be recognizable? That is arrogant.

You crown all that with accusing me of making asumptions about you and immediately making assumptions about me. Silly ones, at that.

So you don't like it when others make assumptions about you? Then don't make assumptions about others.

You will not top the list of the worthiest argument opponent I've ever had and you are doing Russian hockey and Russian fans a disservice here. Please stop.

I tell you the same thing.

 

[Tighina]

Who died and made you the Patriotism Inspector? The fact that I am Russian and proud of it does not mean I have to spit truth in the eye. I can be both proud and respectful of facts.
I will not even mention your "Canadians don't need team cohesiveness as much" dribble any more. It's not worthy of it.
If you knew anything about hockey, you would know that being ready for line change-ups means you have to be MORE cohesive as a team, not less. Because you have to be ready to play not only with the members of your line, but with any player the coach points to. Every single Canadian player from 1972 says that one of the major reasons they managed to win the Moscow part of the series was because they had some time to practice in Sweden and gel as a team.
Voice your theory anywhere in hockey circles and you will be laughed out of the room.

I could only find Kulagin's quote about the Canadian intensity in a Sport-Express interview with Phil Esposito.
But here is another one you will enjoy. I will translate it for the benefit of our North American friends:

Пятачок у ворот - самая горячая точка хоккейной площадки. У канадцев даже посредственный форвард устремляется туда на добивание не колеблясь. Хотя там порой и достается ему немало синяков и шишек. До матчей с профессионалами многим нашим, даже сильнейшим, форвардам приходилось долго объяснять, почему без активной игры на пятачке невозможно добиться успеха. Теперь достаточно упомянуть Фила Эспозито и пространные объяснения не нужны. С точки зрения силовой борьбы советским хоккеистам в Европе равных нет. Но против профессионалов, как выяснилось, даже на мгновение нельзя голову опускать - тут же расстанешься с шайбой. Надо бы и нам так...

The space in front of the net is the "hottest" part of the ice. Even a mediocre Canadian forward is always ready to charge there for a rebound without any hesitation. Even though they often emerge from there with bumps and bruises. Before the games with the pros many our players, even the best of them, had to be explained at length why the active play in front of the net is essential for [beating Candians]. Now it's enough to only mention Phil Esposito, there are no further explanations needed.
As far as the physical play, Soviet players have no rivals in Europe. But against the [Cansdian] pros, as we found out, one cannot lower one's head even for an instant, lest you say goodbye to the puck immediately. We should play like that...

И наконец, как это ни странно на первый взгляд, нам нужно поучиться у игроков НХЛ искусству паса. Нет, когда соперник не дышит в затылок, даже у среднего советского хоккеиста пас едва ли не идеален. Но в условиях жесткой силовой борьбы профессионалы, оказывается, точнее в передачах. А уж об их преимуществе при вбрасываниях мне и говорить не хочется.

Also, as strange as it sounds at first, we should learn from NHL players the art of passing. Yes, when there is no opponent breathing down your neck, even a mediocre Soviet player is able to give an almost perfect pass. But in the atmosphere of tough physical play the [Canadian] pros, as it happens, are more accurate in their passing. As for their advantage in faceoffs, I don't even want to talk about it.

(I guess comrade Kulagin would've had much to say about your assumptions of the Canadian team cohesiveness and how it's influensed by line change-ups.)

И последнее. Многие из наших сильнейших игроков действительно не уступают лучшим профессионалам НХЛ - в Серии-72 была борьба равных. А если, скажем, провести соревнование между пятью, например, сборными? Боюсь, в таком соперничестве - за исключением первых команд - наши шансы крайне малы

And finally. Many of our strongest players are indeed not worse than the best NHL pros, the 1972 Series was an even one. But let's say we have a tournament with five national teams on each side. I am afraid, in such situation (with the exception of the A teams) our chances are extremely low.


Are we ready to close the case and save some face yet or are we going to ask the late Comrade Kulagin to relinguish his Russian citizenship?

 

[jcorb58]

In 72 the Canadian players never kept in shape in the off season. They thought that was what training camp was for. We learned a valuble lesson from the Russians about always staying in top shape. As the tournament progressed the Canadian players slowly got their legs. Now, if players dont come to camp in shape they dont make the team or spend the first couple months with their a**es sucking wind. I believe the Summit series would of been more in the Canadians favour if they took their apponent more seriously to begin with. We were surprized by the superior conditioning of the Russians and learned we needed to change our game in order to compete.

 

[Tighina]

Make sure nobody makes a move to strip you of your Canadian flag, man

But what you say is true. It is also true that the Soviet team was going through transition at the time and wasn't icing the best possible lineup. Who knows what would've been if Firsov, our premier shot-taker, wasn't left off the squad.
There are lots of could'ves and would'ves. Unfortunately, the scoreboard doesn't take them into account in the end.

 

[jcorb58]

Make sure nobody makes a move to strip you of your Canadian flag, man

But what you say is true. It is also true that the Soviet team was going through transition at the time and wasn't icing the best possible lineup. Who knows what would've been if Firsov, our premier shot-taker, wasn't left off the squad.
There are lots of could'ves and would'ves. Unfortunately, the scoreboard doesn't take them into account in the end.

We also had some very good players not in our lineup due to the start up of the World Hockey Association and key injuries. Our best shot-taker (B Hull) and our bet skater ( B Orr ) were not available. That said, i respect your point of view and your ability to look at thinks more objectivly than some others. We learned some valuable lessons that have made North american hockey better for them.