I suspect Mikhailov and Vasiliev are the two top-100's being referred to.
I don't think there's all that big of a gap between Fetisov and Vasiliev as far as defensemen go, but in terms of offense obviously Fetisov would have been a big advantage as you've stated.
From all I can gather, Kharlamov is considered the greatest Soviet hockey player by the Russians themselves. They should know a lot better than myself, so I'll take their word for it until I see a really convincing case for someone else. The fact that Tretiak's MVP voting record is so much better has made me think about moving him ahead, but as it stands I still have Kharlamov first.
Yes, I realise that now; at first I thought it was Petrov, but I forgot that he is not very appreciated here (). Not big a gap between Fetisov and Vasiliev, but I don't think the '70s top five man unit was quite as tight; i.e. it was more like 'the forwards were forwards and the defensemen were defensemen'. Like you indicated, having Fetisov was like having a 4th forward out there... not that Vasiliev couldn't play some mean offense (as seen here at 1:35 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHOTi...eature=related) but it was a lot more sporadic. BTW, Alexander Gusev sucked
If the attitude is "the Russians think that Kharlamov is the best, so he is the best", well, it's hard to argue against it I guess. I still think that in many ways Fetisov, Firsov and Makarov's (and Tretiak's) careers were more impressive and at least in my mind there is, er, reasonable doubt about it. We'll see if there will be any serious arguments in the future, or if it's more like Gretzky thing; "he is the best ever and that's it".
Just to play Devil's Advocate here, from what I've heard the Russian fans & players have a greater appreciation for the aesthetics of the game. They would probably rank Lafleur higher in this poll than most North Americans. Could be why Kharlamov is considered the best. They love those lovely(style-wise) players.
You raise an interesting point. European fans tend to appreciate players for their perceived performance on the large Olympic sized rink in events or short series while North American fans tend to appreciate perceived performance on the standard NHL rink over seasons and playoffs.
The Lafleur / Kharlamov analogy is interesting. Off ice they had issues with motor vehicles. Lafleur was involved in two serious one car accidents - first in 1971, just after being drafted by the Canadiens, he rolled his car driving from Quebec to Montreal. Kharlamov was also involved in two serious car accidents, paying the ultimate price in the second one.
I don't think it really has that much to do with the size of the rink or the length of the competition. Traditionally, European countries are very emotionally tied to their national teams. In basically every sport with some popularity over here (there are exceptions, like tennis or cycling) the greatest prize is the Olympic Gold or the World Championships. Thus we tend to look at hockey the same way. Somebody mentioned it in another thread, when Sweden beat arch rival Finland 6-5 in the 2003 WHC Swedish television had 3.8 million viewers out of a possible 9 million. The Olympic tournament is without any doubt the single most important hockey competition in Sweden. It will definitely mean just as much in Vancouver, despite playing on NHL-sized rinks. The Ice Hockey Olympic tournament is probably the second or third most anticipated sports event in Sweden, trailing only the FIFA World Cup and possibly the UEFA European Football Championships.
It seems like in sports that are popular in Europe; Football, Athletics, Handball, Swimming, Cross-Country & Alpine Skiing, the greatest prize is usually the Gold Medal. Whereas in sports originating in North America; Baseball, American Football the greatest prize is to win the American professional league. Ice Hockey and Basketball lands somewhere in between where the Olympic Gold is the most revered prize in Europe, while the NHL/NBA Championship is the most revered prize in North America.
I am not that well-knowledged of Russian sports, but I would guess that this applies in Russia aswell, as it is a common pattern of most European countries.
If the attitude is "the Russians think that Kharlamov is the best, so he is the best", well, it's hard to argue against it I guess. I still think that in many ways Fetisov, Firsov and Makarov's (and Tretiak's) careers were more impressive and at least in my mind there is, er, reasonable doubt about it. We'll see if there will be any serious arguments in the future, or if it's more like Gretzky thing; "he is the best ever and that's it".
Oh there certainly is reasonable doubt. Like I mentioned, I've considered placing Tretiak above Kharlamov before. Several of those players mentioned have strong points in their favour. The Russians almost universally regarding Kharlamov as #1 is just the factor that puts him over the top for me; it's not the beginning, middle, and end of my argument.
If the attitude is "the Russians think that Kharlamov is the best, so he is the best", well, it's hard to argue against it I guess. I still think that in many ways Fetisov, Firsov and Makarov's (and Tretiak's) careers were more impressive and at least in my mind there is, er, reasonable doubt about it. We'll see if there will be any serious arguments in the future, or if it's more like Gretzky thing; "he is the best ever and that's it".
I can't tell....Are you trying to say that there has been no serious argument about whether Gretzky was the best or not....?
I can't tell....Are you trying to say that there has been no serious argument about whether Gretzky was the best or not....?
Sure there are Super Mario & Bobby Orr or even Kharlamov fans who argue that their man was the best - and obviously not totally without reason (in the 1st 2 cases, that is). But I think that if any sports/hockey magazine, for example, would pick someone else than Gretzky as the best hockey player ever, it would be very controversial and people would question their credibility; such were the numbers/performances that Gretzky procuded, in the NHL and in international tournaments. In my opinion, there were certainly more exciting and flashier players, but it's REALLY HARD to make a case for anybody else.
But whether there has been a "serious argument" or not, well, I guess I don't know...
Sure there are Super Mario & Bobby Orr or even Kharlamov fans who argue that their man was the best - and obviously not totally without reason (in the 1st 2 cases, that is). But I think that if any sports/hockey magazine, for example, would pick someone else than Gretzky as the best hockey player ever, it would be very controversial and people would question their credibility; such were the numbers/performances that Gretzky procuded, in the NHL and in international tournaments. In my opinion, there were certainly more exciting and flashier players, but it's REALLY HARD to make a case for anybody else.
But whether there has been a "serious argument" or not, well, I guess I don't know...
I have Gretzky #1, but there are reasonable arguments for Orr and Howe especially, and Lemieux as well. Only a fool would question the credibility of a list that didn't have Gretzky at the top (unless he was out of the top four entirely, which would indeed be completely outrageous). Obviously any American publication (Sports Illustrated, ESPN) will have Gretzky at the top, as will almost every list in a Canadian newspaper (occasionally you'll see Orr at the top).
Those lists are usually compiled by reasonably knowledgable hockey people, but not those who have done the extensive research that many of the participants in this project have, nor have they collaborated extensively and gone through a process such as this. For them, putting Gretzky at the top is simply done out of habit and reputation moreso than actually doing a detailed breakdown of the careers of Howe, Orr, and Lemieux and determining that Gretzky's was better.
It's the same with a baseball list. Babe Ruth will top almost every one that you see, but people who have actually done their research will come to realise that there are valid arguments for Ty Cobb and Honus Wagner, maybe Willie Mays as well, to be #1.
Lidstrom +9
Since last time = 1 Cup as captain, 1 Norris, 2 Norris Top 3s
Guy Lafleur -4
I guess the voters just liked him a lot less. Don't recall any lengthy arguments that he was ranked too high last time. He was displaced by Roy and three dmen, so his ranking among forwards remains unchanged.
Harvey +3
Richard -3
The votes liked Harvey and disliked Richard more than last time. These two votes are obviously related.
Roy +2
Voters as a group saw him on the level of Hasek and Plante, whereas last time he was a bit behind.
Kelly +2
He flip flopped with Potvin, based possibly on strong arguments by HO. Still, I was a little surprised to see him a spot over Lidstrom.
I assume as we get farther down the list, the differences will be greater.
I thought Lindsay making the Top 25 last time was a big step forward as I feel he is one of the most overlooked stars because of his famous linemate. Seeing him listed below Messier, Jagr, and Bossy just doesn't seem right to me.
I thought Lindsay making the Top 25 last time was a big step forward as I feel he is one of the most overlooked stars because of his famous linemate. Seeing him listed below Messier, Jagr, and Bossy just doesn't seem right to me.
To me, it seems just right. There was just no strong evidence to put him above them, but he's still among the best of the best.
I thought Lindsay making the Top 25 last time was a big step forward as I feel he is one of the most overlooked stars because of his famous linemate. Seeing him listed below Messier, Jagr, and Bossy just doesn't seem right to me.
I can understand that as seeing Lidstrom as the 17th best player OF ALL TIME just doesn't seem right to me. He was too high last time and his playing hasn't gotten any better.
But what are ya gonna do eh?
Last edited by Stonefly: 08-17-2009 at 11:21 PM.
Reason: spelling
Can somebody good enough with Pre-NHA teams help FF determine the exact starting year of Newsy Lalonde? It's either 1904 or 1905.
... And do Can-Am League should count as a pro-league? I think it shouldn't, so it should be 1927. I'm counting on you guys to help FF (and me...) on that matter.
I can understand that as seeing Lidstrom as the 17th best player OF ALL TIME just doesn't seem right to me. He was too high last time and his playing hasn't gotten any better. But what are ya gonna do eh?
Start building my case for the next update as to why I feel he belongs ahead of them. That's what I'll do, and it's what I would advise anyone to do who feels that a player is ranked too high or too low.
I'm sure everybody has players who's ranking just doesn't seem right to them. I think Lidstrom in the top-25 is pushing it, let alone #17, but I have to accept that most people see it differently. It's easier when you feel a guy is underrated, because you can simply build a case for them and highlight all the great things they've done. Evidently a solid case was built for Taylor and he jumped accordingly. It's a little tougher for someone you feel to be overrated. I can't really type out a post trashing Lidstrom, because there's nothing to trash. I just happen to feel he was a little less great than Potvin for instance, but that argument isn't likely to sway many people.
). Not big a gap between Fetisov and Vasiliev, but I don't think the '70s top five man unit was quite as tight; i.e. it was more like 'the forwards were forwards and the defensemen were defensemen'. Like you indicated, having Fetisov was like having a 4th forward out there... not that Vasiliev couldn't play some mean offense (as seen here at 1:35 
