HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Soviet / Russian Hockey a Retrospective

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-12-2010, 07:14 AM
  #201
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,821
vCash: 500
Five Man Units

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
Except they weren't. When the NHL started it was more of an NBA system with a starting unit and substitutions to keep people fresh.

Maybe briefly in the late 20's. But it was pretty soon that teams had 4 d-men and 9 forwards, thus preventing a 5 man unit.
Few differences between the NHL and NBA or college five man units.
In basketball players get into "foul trouble" and you have strategic fouling,both dictating playing time. Not the case in hockey. In basketball before the 24/30 second shot clock the pace of the game varied for strategic reasons. Hockey never had a shot clock so the pace was constant. Finally hockey is one of the rare team sports where player changes may be made during action or "on the fly". Basketball requires reporting the changes to the timer and a stoppage in play.

The appropriate analogies would be "one platoon" football which was gradually eliminated after WWII, or soccer.

The basic problem with five man units in hockey is that hockey always allowed unlimited substitution, even in the days of seven man hockey. Once you have unlimited substitution the opposing coach will start targeting weaknesses with match-ups and unless you adapt by making appropriate changes to counter the match-ups your team will be at a disadvantage.Add the ability to "change on the fly" in combination with variable shift length and five man units are very easy to disrupt or take advantage with by making appropriate match-ups.True today as it was one hundred years ago.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2010, 08:56 AM
  #202
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,821
vCash: 500
Rhs

Quote:
Originally Posted by anderson9 View Post
Central Red Army under Tarasov were lousy on power play, take my word for it. Lack of in-zone player movement lead to quick turnovers. Не never invented the umbrella. It was the pedantic Chernyshev in charge of power play strategies in the Soviet NT the basic one being the right halfboards overload. What u mistake for the umbrella was in fact Firsov(one of the few RH shooters) at left point who basically never moved in.
Nice to see that someone else appreciates RHS left wingers/centers and how they impact the offensive game. Also how the playing of players on the off wing changes the offensive game.


Last edited by Canadiens1958: 03-12-2010 at 10:41 AM. Reason: wording
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2010, 10:27 AM
  #203
Bear of Bad News
Mod Supervisor
 
Bear of Bad News's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Windsor
Posts: 4,637
vCash: 663
I'm going to post a very clear reminder to ACT LIKE ADULTS, and to TREAT ONE ANOTHER LIKE ADULTS.

This slapfest has gone on for too long already.

Bear of Bad News is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2010, 11:57 AM
  #204
Zine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rostov-on-Don
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 10,226
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Pinching defensemen - Bobby Orr says hi. Old NHL tactic.
Yeah, so what?

The point of the article is to illustrate that Soviets tactically adapted, adjusted and diversified.......something you've said, time and time again, did not happen.

Edit: Still waiting for concrete evidence Soviets defense was consistently vulnerable.
You really don't have any, do you?


Last edited by Zine: 03-12-2010 at 01:10 PM.
Zine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2010, 12:41 PM
  #205
Zine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rostov-on-Don
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 10,226
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
1.) If you are coaching a defense based on "Puck Possession" then the first question should be how would I coach against my "Puck Possession" approach.How should the players play when the team does not have the puck? How should the players be positioned to get the puck against such an approach? How is this positioning applicable in other offensive and defensive situations? No evidence has been presented that this was done by the Soviets. Evidence suggests that despite words and efforts - Tikhonov's comments praising Bob Gainey and his game in 1979, The Soviets/Russians were never able to incorporate similar defensive skills into their game.Now - thirty years later the Russians have yet to produce such players.

Puck possession IS a defensive tactic (in and of itself) because it ensures that opposing team’s best players aren’t on the attack, and/or it ensures they are spending energy defending.
BTW, the Soviet system was well quipped for turnovers because defensemen usually stayed back and center’s responsibility was defense.

Of course, without the puck Soviets employed many Canadian defensive tactics. However, like I’ve said before, taking influence from somebody is not ‘copying’ them if you incorporate that influence into something unique or new.


Last edited by Zine: 03-12-2010 at 01:14 PM.
Zine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2010, 01:03 PM
  #206
Zine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rostov-on-Don
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 10,226
vCash: 500
BTW, a good reverse scenario is cycling down low. It's been a trademark of North American hockey for years....it grinds teams down.
Who do you think the genesis of cycling came from? Later on it was just incorporated deeper in the offensive zone.
Of course the Soviet influence is there, but is down low cycling a Soviet based tactic? Of course not.
Are North American teams 'stealing' from Soviets every time they cycle down low? Of course not.

This example is no different from many of the tactics you claim credit for. Although you may have had influence, stop taking credit for other countries ideas.

Zine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2010, 01:10 PM
  #207
YMB29
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 422
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommygunn View Post
It wasn't 'Team Canada'..
It was all Canadians except three Swedes, of which I think only Salming got significant ice time.
Again the loss was a shock and taken as an embarrassment to Canadian hockey.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
It's not a matter of fault, it's a statement of fact. In best on best tournaments, the Soviets were a clear 2nd best.
So what were those tournaments according to you?

YMB29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2010, 01:24 PM
  #208
Zine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rostov-on-Don
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 10,226
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
It's not a matter of fault, it's a statement of fact. In best on best tournaments, the Soviets were a clear 2nd best.
The point was what should constitute a 'best vs best' between Soviets and Canada

Soviets didn't have their best for at least 2 Canada Cups. And, for obvious reasons, some individuals don't count 1979 Challenge Cup (or even 1987 Rendezvous) as a best-on best tournament.

Zine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2010, 01:33 PM
  #209
VMBM
Amate misericordiam
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by YMB29 View Post
It was all Canadians except three Swedes, of which I think only Salming got significant ice time.
Again the loss was a shock and taken as an embarrassment to Canadian hockey
Yeah, but they were 'NHL All Stars', and that makes it a totally different thing!

And maybe they should've told beforehand that it was a meaningless little exhibition (like the Russia haters so desperately claim it is - or alternatively ignore it totally) and not to call it "The Series of the Century" (which of course it wasn't - not even in my opinion).

Quite interestingly, it was rather the Soviets (Tikhonov) who downplayed the series right from the start. And of course, winning the world championship was their main goal that season. But to be fair; for NHL players, it obviously was Stanley Cup... anyway, judging by how he talks about it in his book, Tikhonov seemed to be quite proud of the win, even though he still tries his best to downplay it ('it was just a test for us').

VMBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2010, 02:10 PM
  #210
tommygunn
Registered User
 
tommygunn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by YMB29 View Post
It was all Canadians except three Swedes, of which I think only Salming got significant ice time.
Again the loss was a shock and taken as an embarrassment to Canadian hockey.
Everybody in this section should know what players comprised the NHL All-Star team for the Challenge Cup; everybody should also know that it was never implied or referred to as Team Canada!

These are facts... no matter how much you try to to convince yourself and others otherwise..

tommygunn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2010, 02:53 PM
  #211
VMBM
Amate misericordiam
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommygunn View Post
Everybody in this section should know what players comprised the NHL All-Star team for the Challenge Cup; everybody should also know that it was never implied or referred to as Team Canada!
Except by one of the callers/analysts, I think... though maybe accidentally (Freudian slip?)

VMBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2010, 05:12 PM
  #212
YMB29
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 422
vCash: 500
Yes, the commentators constantly called Team NHL "Canadians"...

YMB29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2010, 08:37 PM
  #213
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by YMB29 View Post
So what were those tournaments according to you?
Soviets best vs other countries less than best.

__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2010, 10:17 PM
  #214
YMB29
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 422
vCash: 500
You said the Soviets were clear 2nd best in "best on best" tournaments, so I asked what were those tournaments?

YMB29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2010, 11:27 PM
  #215
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,821
vCash: 500
By the Numbers

Took some time but the following numbers are worth looking at:

1972 Plus/Minus stats for both teams.

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

Note the numbers for Mikhailov, Petrov, Kharlamov, Maltsev and Vikulov. As the series progressed the Soviet stars had a hard time playing defense. Yakushev and Shadrin were the only two Soviets who were sound defensively.The rest could be beat.

In the Moscow half of the series Vladislav Tretiak had a SV% of .85833, far from great. Why? Simple because he was left alone most of the time.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2010, 11:36 PM
  #216
YMB29
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 422
vCash: 500
+/- rating... I guess that stat proves everything you were saying about Soviet hockey...

YMB29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2010, 05:22 AM
  #217
Zine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rostov-on-Don
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 10,226
vCash: 500
+/- stats of the very first series played between Canada/USSR as evidence? Scraping the bottom of the barrel I see.

Zine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2013, 04:25 AM
  #218
boredmale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 30,376
vCash: 500
Just out of curiosity how exactly did the Russian league work in the 70s and 80s.

From my understanding CSKA got the first crack at talent and then the rest of the teams got the leftovers. Did players actually have the choice to play for CSKA or not?

boredmale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2013, 06:11 AM
  #219
Kshahdoo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 6,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredmale View Post
Just out of curiosity how exactly did the Russian league work in the 70s and 80s.

From my understanding CSKA got the first crack at talent and then the rest of the teams got the leftovers. Did players actually have the choice to play for CSKA or not?
Yakushev, Maltsev, Vasiliev (btw about good soviet defensemen - you won't name 5 canadians who were better than him), Bilyaletdinov, Pervukhin never played in CSKA. But generally yes, CSKA had a big advantage. Those all time greats I named above never won a single soviet league title.

Kshahdoo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2013, 07:12 AM
  #220
boredmale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 30,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kshahdoo View Post
Yakushev, Maltsev, Vasiliev (btw about good soviet defensemen - you won't name 5 canadians who were better than him), Bilyaletdinov, Pervukhin never played in CSKA. But generally yes, CSKA had a big advantage. Those all time greats I named above never won a single soviet league title.
So did they have a choice or not to play with other teams? I am guessing CSKA gave alot of benefits to people who decided to join the army team(to the point you would almost be stupid or stubborn not to take the offer)

boredmale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2013, 12:34 PM
  #221
Kshahdoo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 6,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredmale View Post
So did they have a choice or not to play with other teams? I am guessing CSKA gave alot of benefits to people who decided to join the army team(to the point you would almost be stupid or stubborn not to take the offer)
Well, there always were some pretty good players outside CSKA. Who never wanted to play in the club, and they didn't play in it. And all those players became greats playing in the USSR NT. So you could play in Soviet NT not being a CSKA player. But of course it was much easier to get to NT playing for CSKA.

But it wasn't easy to play in CSKA. Balderis for example left it after year or two.

Kshahdoo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2013, 03:10 AM
  #222
VMBM
Amate misericordiam
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kshahdoo View Post
Yakushev, Maltsev, Vasiliev (btw about good soviet defensemen - you won't name 5 canadians who were better than him), Bilyaletdinov, Pervukhin never played in CSKA. But generally yes, CSKA had a big advantage. Those all time greats I named above never won a single soviet league title.
Moscow Spartak won the Soviet league title e.g. in 1967, 1969 and 1976, so I think Yakushev at least definitely won a title (3 of them, probably).

Some other more or less important non-CSKA players: Starshinov, Shadrin, Lyapkin, Shalimov, Lebedev, Shepelev, Konovalenko. And yep, Balderis and Kapustin, for example, had only short stints in CSKA.

The split in the NT was nearly always about 50 % CSKA - 50 % other teams' players, never 70-30 or 80-20, as it is sometimes claimed. Of course, the majority of the best Soviet players played for CSKA.


Last edited by VMBM: 01-30-2013 at 03:37 AM.
VMBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:20 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.