What if Team NHL lost in summit series 1972?

[VMBM]

Good points. I have a ton of respect for Soviet hockey, but by 1972 they weren't quite "there" yet, because:

1) Canada still won,

2) The Soviets had the element of surprise on their side big-time,

3) They played together all year; our players did not,

4) We were missing the best defenseman, left winger, and right winger in hockey history, all of whom were capable of playing.

Still overdoing the CSKA factor, eh? CSKA was about 40-45 % of the national team, not the whole team; i.e. Maltsev and Vasiliev (Moscow Dynamo) did not play all year together with Yakushev, Lyapkin, Shadrin (Moscow Spartak), nor with Kharlamov, Petrov, Mikhailov, Tsygankov, Vikulov etc. (CSKA). Sure, it was still very different from Team Canada, but...

The Soviets were missing Anatoli Firsov (he hadn't retired like Gordie Howe [albeit temporarily] to whom you were referring to I believe) and most importantly, coach Anatoli Tarasov and to lesser extent, Arkady Chernyshev, behind the bench. There had been big changes in Soviet hockey in the beginning of 1972. They couldn't even win the world championship that year.

Having said all this, I agree that USSR wasn't quite up there yet. Although they had some advantages (passing, 'transition game'), they were still behind in a few areas.

 

[Canadiens Fan]

Got to believe Tony O and Dryden would be wearing some mighty large goat horns. They were not good in that tournament. I've always wondered why they went with Dryden in game 8. Espo wasn't great that series, but he outplayed Dryden IMO. The Russian style always drove Dryden nuts. I wonder if that why he had trouble with the Sabres french connection as well?

As to why Dryden started over Tony O, he had a reputation as a big-game goalie, based on his 1971 playoff performance, whereas Tony O on the opposite end, was still stigmatized by what had happened in game 7 of the 1971 finals

 

[seventieslord]

Still overdoing the CSKA factor, eh? CSKA was about 40-45 % of the national team, not the whole team; i.e. Maltsev and Vasiliev (Moscow Dynamo) did not play all year together with Yakushev, Lyapkin, Shadrin (Moscow Spartak), nor with Kharlamov, Petrov, Mikhailov, Tsygankov, Vikulov etc. (CSKA). Sure, it was still very different from Team Canada, but...

The Soviets were missing Anatoli Firsov (he hadn't retired like Gordie Howe [albeit temporarily] to whom you were referring to I believe) and most importantly, coach Anatoli Tarasov and to lesser extent, Arkady Chernyshev, behind the bench. There had been big changes in Soviet hockey in the beginning of 1972. They couldn't even win the world championship that year.

Having said all this, I agree that USSR wasn't quite up there yet. Although they had some advantages (passing, 'transition game'), they were still behind in a few areas.

yes, that is true. The loss of Tarasov as coach had to be a big blow, but by then his fingerprints were all over the development of most of those players.

If 40-45% of the team came from CSKA, that's still a pretty good chemistry advantage.

 

[SCORE4]

I thought Tony Esposito was pretty good, but Dryden was terrible .... Why the hell did Dryden play Game 8 ???? .... Everyone seems to forget that Gerry Cheevers was also selected for TC72 .... I think he'd have made a huge difference. In '74, he was spectacular.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The Numbers

i.e. Maltsev and Vasiliev (Moscow Dynamo) did not play all year together with Yakushev, Lyapkin, Shadrin (Moscow Spartak), nor with Kharlamov, Petrov, Mikhailov, Tsygankov, Vikulov etc. (CSKA). Sure, it was still very different from Team Canada, but...

The Soviets were missing Anatoli Firsov (he hadn't retired like Gordie Howe [albeit temporarily] to whom you were referring to I believe) and most importantly, coach Anatoli Tarasov and to lesser extent, Arkady Chernyshev, behind the bench. There had been big changes in Soviet hockey in the beginning of 1972. They couldn't even win the world championship that year.

Having said all this, I agree that USSR wasn't quite up there yet. Although they had some advantages (passing, 'transition game'), they were still behind in a few areas.

CSKA representation was a total of 14 players - 9 forwards, 4 defensemen, 1 goalie.Basically three lines and two defensive pairings. Given the size of the roster the 40-45% figure is accurate BUT what is more revealing is the percentage of player games played and the CSKA players played approx 62-63 % of the player games played.

So in terms of actual participation or games / minutes played the CSKA players were dominant.

 

[Zine]

Soviet hockey was in transition during Summit Series. The young players weren't quite in their prime (MPK, Tretyak, etc.) and the vets were past their prime (Ragulin, Starshinov, etc.). Plus, Soviets were in the middle of a coaching change and Firsov and Gusev didn't play.
Still, that team was probably the best they had at that point in history.
I'd say Soviets in '72 could easily compete with Canada but weren't quite as good as them on a game in-game out basis yet.
It wasn't until a few years later with better depth (with players like Zhluktov, Kapustin, Balderis, Golikhovs, etc.) did Soviet hockey surpass the Canadians.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Gusev

Soviet hockey was in transition during Summit Series. The young players weren't quite in their prime (MPK, Tretyak, etc.) and the vets were past their prime (Ragulin, Starshinov, etc.). Plus, Soviets were in the middle of a coaching change and Firsov and Gusev didn't play.
Still, that team was probably the best they had at that point in history.
I'd say Soviets in '72 could easily compete with Canada but weren't quite as good as them on a game in-game out basis yet.
It wasn't until a few years later with better depth (with players like Zhluktov, Kapustin, Balderis, Golikhovs, etc.) did Soviet hockey surpass the Canadians.

Stats show that Alexander Gusev played most of the games:

http://www.1972summitseries.com/sovietroster.html

 

[Zine]

Stats show that Alexander Gusev played most of the games:

http://www.1972summitseries.com/sovietroster.html

Wow, nice catch.
Yes, Gusev played. I meant to say defenseman Davydov. He along with Firsov were strong loyalists to Tarasov.

 

[VMBM]

CSKA representation was a total of 14 players - 9 forwards, 4 defensemen, 1 goalie.Basically three lines and two defensive pairings. Given the size of the roster the 40-45% figure is accurate BUT what is more revealing is the percentage of player games played and the CSKA players played approx 62-63 % of the player games played.

So in terms of actual participation or games / minutes played the CSKA players were dominant.

Bolded. Really? Still, you can't deny that contributions from other teams' players and/or lines were crucial (Vasiliev, Lyapkin and Shadrin, Yakushev and Maltsev in particular - also the so called 'Kid Line' in G3).

Also, USSR juggled their lines uncharacteristically lot in the 1972 series. In the later serieses, they seemed to do this only when it was totally necessary (for example, in the Challenge Cup when Kharlamov and later V. Golikov were injured). Even after the crushingly victorious 1st game, they changed both the top and 2nd line for G2; i.e. Starshinov replaced Vikulov and was paired with Kharlamov-Maltsev and Mikhailov-Petrov-Blinov became M-P-Mishakov.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

It wasn't until a few years later with better depth (with players like Zhluktov, Kapustin, Balderis, Golikhovs, etc.) did Soviet hockey surpass the Canadians.

The USSR beat Canada fair and square in '81, but I think we both know that Soviet hockey never surpassed Canada's. The USSR never had enough people playing the sport for that to be a realistic statement, it was good for a good chuckle though....

 

[Zine]

The USSR beat Canada fair and square in '81, but I think we both know that Soviet hockey never surpassed Canada's. The USSR never had enough people playing the sport for that to be a realistic statement, it was good for a good chuckle though....

# of players and talent depth are 2 different things.

WJC is a good indicator of talent depth, right? Soviets won just as many WJC as Canada did (5 each since Canada sent their best WJC teams).
Add this to the numerous Soviet "A" team victories and it's obvious that Soviet hockey surpassed Canada on several occasions.
Both countries were neck-and-neck for nearly 30 years.

Even forgetting talent depth, there's still the issue of better national team. Up until just recently, Russia has had a better "A" team for the last several years.

Edit: Just came to mind - Soviet/NHL super series. Even mid-level Soviet teams had winning record vs NHL.

 

[Wetcoaster]

The Flyers were the first team to make intimidation one of the key components of their game plan. Other teams before had undoubtedly flirted with it, but none had ever made it such a crucial tenant of their philosophy.

A large part of the Flyers success was built on a tenacious forecheck, an unbreakable team spirit, and an absolute devotion to their coach. Of course, Shero along with Keith Allen, realizing that they didn't have the most skilled group of hockey players in the world, instead molded the Flyers into what they were and what they did best, and they were undoubtedly successful.

Contray to their reputation the Flyers did have skilled players and in Clarke and Parent elite players, as well as some very good hockey players. Shero was undoubtedly a brilliant tactician and IMO is the best coach not enshrined in the Hockey Hall of Fame. Of course, their aggressive style naturally led to the fighting and other stuff, but that also worked in their favour, vis-a-vis their intimidation.

In short, the Flyers excelled because they forced much of their opposition to play out of their comfort zone, and thus dictated that they play the Flyers style. One look at the frustration of Bobby Orr in the waning moments of the 1974 finals testifies to the success of their approach.

They were simply following the precept of Conn Smythe when he built the Leafs:

If you can't beat em in the alley, you cant beat 'em on the ice.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

# of players and talent depth are 2 different things.

WJC is a good indicator of talent depth, right? Soviets won just as many WJC as Canada did (5 each since Canada sent their best WJC teams).
Add this to the numerous Soviet "A" team victories and it's obvious that Soviet hockey surpassed Canada on several occasions.
Both countries were neck-and-neck for nearly 30 years.

Even forgetting talent depth, there's still the issue of better national team. Up until just recently, Russia has had a better "A" team for the last several years.

Edit: Just came to mind - Soviet/NHL super series. Even mid-level Soviet teams had winning record vs NHL.

If you are using the WJC as a measure of talent then you have to include that in '87 Canada would have won the gold were they not disqualified. Also keep in mind that all those tournaments were played on European sized ice and that the Soviets had more prep time. You have to ask yourself why this apparent success led to so few depth adult players after the USSR fell.

As for your comment about Russia's 'A' team, just not sure what to say about that.

As for the super series, how many teams was the USSR's top talent spread over? Was it the same or more as the number of NHL teams at the time?

As usual all comparisons that don't stand up to any level of scrutiny.

 

[Zine]

If you are using the WJC as a measure of talent then you have to include that in '87 Canada would have won the gold were they not disqualified. Also keep in mind that all those tournaments were played on European sized ice and that the Soviets had more prep time. You have to ask yourself why this apparent success led to so few depth adult players after the USSR fell.

As for your comment about Russia's 'A' team, just not sure what to say about that.

As for the super series, how many teams was the USSR's top talent spread over? Was it the same or more as the number of NHL teams at the time?

As usual all comparisons that don't stand up to any level of scrutiny.

And, predictably, here comes Mr Kanadensisk's list of time-tested excuses........European ice, prep time, # of Soviet League teams, etc. etc.

For somebody so steadfastly opposed to excuses from other teams, you sure are fast to rely on them when Canada loses.

Pot meet kettle



BTW, it was extremely unlikely Canada wins 1987 WJC Gold even if not disqualified. Check your history.
And, yes, previous to this olympics, Russian "A" team was better than Canada's the past few years. And, yes, soviet hockey on numerous occasions surpassed Canada.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

And, predictably, here comes Mr Kanadensisk's list of time-tested excuses........European ice, prep time, # of Soviet League teams, etc. etc.

For somebody so steadfastly opposed to excuses from other teams, you sure are fast to rely on them when Canada loses.

Pot meet kettle



BTW, it was extremely unlikely Canada wins 1987 WJC Gold even if not disqualified. Check your history.
And, yes, previous to this olympics, Russian "A" team was better than Canada's the past few years. And, yes, soviet hockey on numerous occasions surpassed Canada.

Check your history, in '87 the USSR was 2-3-1, in other words they sucked, Canada would have easily finished the game with a +5 differential and take the gold.

I take it your Russian 'A' team is based on WC results which is so laughable I'm not even going to respond to that.

So once again I ask, why did the USSR's WJC success from '82 to '91 produce so few talented adult players?

 

[Zine]

Check your history, in '87 the USSR was 2-3-1, in other words they sucked, Canada would have easily finished the game with a +5 differential and take the gold.

Canada needed more than 5 goals to claim gold. They were up 4-2 late in 2nd when punch-up started.....extremely unlikely Canada would have won by 6.

Nice try.

I take it your Russian 'A' team is based on WC results which is so laughable I'm not even going to respond to that.

A combination of that and especially olympic victory in 2006. On more than one occasion Russia has fininshed better than Canada in recent olympics.
But I guess that only determines who's better when Canada beats Russia, right?

So once again I ask, why did the USSR's WJC success from '82 to '91 produce so few talented adult players?

Here, I'll just quote you:
"These arguments are all pretty weak, are you serious or are you just bitter because you team doesn't look very good under this type of scrutiny?"

Any more excuses? Do I need to ask?

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Canada needed more than 5 goals to claim gold. They were up 4-2 late in 2nd when punch-up started.....extremely unlikely Canada would have won by 6.

Nice try.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_World_Junior_Ice_Hockey_Championships

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

A combination of that and especially olympic victory in 2006. On more than one occasion Russia has fininshed better than Canada in recent olympics.
But I guess that only determines who's better when Canada beats Russia, right?

Canada has won 3 of the last 4 best on best tournaments, there is really nothing more to say.

 

[Zine]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_World_Junior_Ice_Hockey_Championships

"A victory against the Soviets would have guaranteed Canada the silver, and a victory by more than five goals would have won the gold medal".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punch-up_in_Piestany

And even if it was only 5 goals, Canada was not on pace to achieve that.

Canada has won 3 of the last 4 best on best tournaments, there is really nothing more to say.

You mean there's nothing more you can say, so you must rely on revisionism, excuses and red herrings.

Like I said, Russia had a better 'A' team for last several seasons and, on several occasions, Soviet hockey surpassed Canada.

To quote you again:
'Sorry bud, the truth hurts'.

 

[JFA87-66-99]

the 1972 soviets were just as good as the canadiens and were certaintly more skilled hockey players.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Look at the +/- numbers slick.



Nope, Canada has dominated because we have way more people playing hockey than you, no revisions or red herrings needed.

Canada needed to win by 5 to guarantee gold. If they won by 4 the +/- would have been even. At that point I don't know what the tie breaker would have been. I remember the commentator saying they'd have to go to the computers to figure out who would get the gold.

First tie breaker - Head to head (Canada and Finland tied 6-6)
Second tie breaker - +/- (if Canada won by 4 it would be a dead heat with Finland)
Third tie breaker - ???

 

[Hockeynomad]

The USSR beat Canada fair and square in '81, but I think we both know that Soviet hockey never surpassed Canada's. The USSR never had enough people playing the sport for that to be a realistic statement, it was good for a good chuckle though....

The 1981 "slaughter" was not one exactly. The score was Soviets 3-1 with 10 minutes to play. TC desperate to get back, the defense pinching up, left many odd man 3 on 2 and 2 on 1 soviet counter-rushes.

and you couldn't blame Liut on all of the goals

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

The 1981 "slaughter" was not one exactly. The score was Soviets 3-1 with 10 minutes to play. TC desperate to get back, the defense pinching up, left many odd man 3 on 2 and 2 on 1 soviet counter-rushes.

and you couldn't blame Liut on all of the goals

And only 4 days earlier we had beat them 7-3. Had we played another 7 game series I think we would have prevailed, but in a one game playoff that's how it goes. That's why the bigger picture of all the Best on Best tournaments tells much more than the results of any one game.

 

[Zine]

The 1981 "slaughter" was not one exactly. The score was Soviets 3-1 with 10 minutes to play. TC desperate to get back, the defense pinching up, left many odd man 3 on 2 and 2 on 1 soviet counter-rushes.

and you couldn't blame Liut on all of the goals

Incorrect.

Soviets scored 3 late goals (at 16:00, 18:38 and 19:19).....but it was already 5-1 with 4 minutes gone in the 3rd.

 

[adsfan]

Not entirely.

At several times in history Soviet hockey was definitely better than Canadian hockey. On the whole (taking everything into account) both were pretty much equal.

However, Russian hockey has slipped behind Canada. Although I'd say Russian hockey surpassed Canadian hockey for a short while in late 1990s to 2002. In addition, at least up to 2010 olympics, Russian "A" team has been better the last few years.

It just seems some people can't stand that their arch enemy bested them in their own game.

That explains why the Russians didn't win the gold medal at the Olympics this year. Or the silver medal won by the USA. Gee, I don't remember seeing them in the bronze medal game either. I guess they were #5 or lower in the most recent event! That means they slipped behind the US, Sweden, Finland...

If Canada lost the 1972 Summit Series, it would have been a huge embarassment! The Soviet Union had been working toward hockey domination since the 1950s. All of that effort paid off in several Olympic gold medals. The 1980 loss to the US college kids broke their momentum. The break up of the Union drove a stake through the heart of the Big Red Machine in sports.