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

Hopefully gain some insight on Makarov

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-29-2013, 06:57 PM
  #76
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel View Post
It's like saying "these people prefer milk chocolate, but at some point they should realize that dark is better." They just look for something else in the game entirely and often dismiss the stats. I'm not saying it's right, in fact I think it's ridiculous, but hey, that's what I think is happening.

As for Makarov vs. Messier: even if I accept Messier's superiority in 89-94 (not by much, given the teams they were on), I believe his Canucks and Rangers II stints nullify this advantage. Which leaves us with the 80s, where Makarov, IMO, wins decisively.
1) Their teams were comparable
Makarov's teams weren't horrible from 89-94 though. The Flames and Sharks were comparable to Messier's Oilers and Rangers. In that span Messier's teams averaged 93.2 points per season and Makarov's averaged 90.4, so they're in the same ballpark.

2) Messier was a Superior Playoff Performer
While those Makarov teams didn't perform as well in the playoffs, it should be noted that neither did Makarov. Messier was a consistently strong playoff performer. Makarov was not. Even when he scored 6 goals in 7 games to help upset Detroit in 1994, he followed it up by scoring 0 points in Games 1-4 vs Toronto, 4 points in Game 5, and 0 points in games 6 and 7.

3) Messier was a Better Regular Season Performer
Even without the playoffs, Messier was a better player during Makarov's first five years in the NHL. He was Makarov's equal as a goal-scorer, and has superior assist totals. That comparison is not unfair to Makarov. While the 1994 Sharks couldn't buy a goal, the Flames were the second best offensive team in the NHL from 1990-93. Messier was also an effective penalty killer while Makarov was almost never seen in PK situations.

In short, from 1990-94, Messier was clearly the superior player, offensively, defensively, in the regular season, and in the playoffs.

As for Messier's later years, I find it hard to fault a player who is at least marginally productive in his later years to "nullify" prior success. Perhaps, if Makarov was pulling a Selanne-esque late career surge, that time period could allow him time to gain ground, but he was (effectively) retired and shouldn't benefit by producing nothing.

Regarding the 1980s, Makarov's success in the Soviet Union should place him higher among the ranks of great Russian players, but doesn't necessarily translate to a comparison with North Americans. An environment where your team has a monopoly on the best players is vastly different from the NHL. If you think team strength is an issue because Makarov's teams were 3 points weaker than Messier's teams, you should take a long look at the relative strength of Red Army.

blogofmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 08:01 PM
  #77
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shazariahl View Post
So my question at this point is why isn't he rated higher by the Soviets themselves? Kharlamov seems to be consistantly placed above him, yet the stats don't seem to bear this out at all. In fact, the more you look, the more one sided it is in Makarov's favor. Often Makarov isn't even top 3. Yet he clearly dominated his peers far more than any other Soviet forward.

Yes, I've read about the Soviet (and European in general, really) appreciation for the "artistry" or the player and rating that often more than the actual results. But you'd think at some point, people would look at the actual stats and start to question this.
Kharlamov is a guy who is in the HHOF while Makarov is not. By that measure I would think a lot of people for ceremonial reasons would think Kharlamov was better. Kharlamov is a name that ignites a lot of great memories and I think the legend of Kharlamov is bigger for that reason, even among Canadians. There is a respect with him, almost a reverence, like someone can't possibly be mentioned (among Russians) better than him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel View Post
As for Makarov vs. Messier: even if I accept Messier's superiority in 89-94 (not by much, given the teams they were on), I believe his Canucks and Rangers II stints nullify this advantage. Which leaves us with the 80s, where Makarov, IMO, wins decisively.
From 1989-'95 Messier is 10th in points with 528. Makarov sits 46th with 384. That is a substantial difference right there. Take into account the richer all around game by Messier, the two Harts and the two Cups plus nice playoff runs and it is really no contest in that time frame.

Give Makarov credit in the 1980s if you want but the difference in the 1980s is not as big as the gap from 1989-'95 when they were in the same league. We really don't know what Makarov would have done in the NHL in the 1980s, but we did see him when he was older and it is clear Messier was the better player then. Makarov is gone by 1995. Messier still has two very good seasons after that, one where he finishes 2nd to Lemieux for the Hart.

I still don't understand why you think post 1997 Messier "nullifies" the advantage he had earlier. Makarov wasn't even playing. Messier did add a whole lot to his resume in that span but it was still better than not playing. How can you take away what he had already done?

Throw in playoff performances. Makarov didn't do much to help the Flames get out of that hole they started in back in 1990 with first round losses.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 08:47 PM
  #78
shazariahl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,534
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Kharlamov is a guy who is in the HHOF while Makarov is not. By that measure I would think a lot of people for ceremonial reasons would think Kharlamov was better. Kharlamov is a name that ignites a lot of great memories and I think the legend of Kharlamov is bigger for that reason, even among Canadians. There is a respect with him, almost a reverence, like someone can't possibly be mentioned (among Russians) better than him.
I think there's probably something to that as well - he had the mystique about him in the 72 series where he just impressed right out the gate and caught everyone's attention. And of course, the broken ankle kind of lends itself to the legend as well - Canada had to "take him out" because they had no chance with him in the line up, sort of thing.

Small and probably boring side-story: Growing up just outside of Edmonton during the early 80's I was fortunate enough to see many Oiler games at the start of Gretzky's NHL career. My uncle lived on the same property that my parents owned, and had a large trailer there. I used to go to his place sometimes and watch hockey games, since my own parents didn't really care about sports. My uncle was a big Bobby Hull fan, and thought Hull was the best ever. He didn't really like Gretzky because he didnt fit the mold of what Hull and Howe had been.

That finally changed the night we saw Gretzky score his 46-50th goals in his 39th game. I remember being so excited and looking over at my uncle who had a tear running down one cheek. I'd never seen him cry before. I asked him what was wrong, and he said "I was wrong [about Gretzky]. He's the best I've ever seen." I think when someone becomes a fan, they bond on a certain level with the player, and it takes a lot for us to look past those emotional connections and look rationally at the evidence before us. Maybe its the same with Kharlamov - he was the guy people first fell in love with, and the stats or lack of dominance didn't matter. Canadians were awed by him in 72, and the Soviets seem to respect their 70's teams more than those of the 80's as well.

shazariahl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 09:07 PM
  #79
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 2,919
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
From 1989-'95 Messier is 10th in points with 528. Makarov sits 46th with 384. That is a substantial difference right there. Take into account the richer all around game by Messier, the two Harts and the two Cups plus nice playoff runs and it is really no contest in that time frame.
In NY Messier played with Zubov, Kovalev, Tikkanen, Leetch, and Richter. Who did Makarov play with in San Jose?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Give Makarov credit in the 1980s if you want but the difference in the 1980s is not as big as the gap from 1989-'95 when they were in the same league. We really don't know what Makarov would have done in the NHL in the 1980s, but we did see him when he was older and it is clear Messier was the better player then. Makarov is gone by 1995.
Inter-league transfer is a tricky thing. NHL stars thoroughly sucked in KHL during the 2004-05 lockout. We don't know how well would Messier do in the Soviet Elite League. Makarov had to change his whole way of life and handled it better than most. In fact, only Larionov, Fetisov, and Kamensky had greater success, and they got lucky by playing in the puck-possession clubs.

But, like I said: fine, Messier was a better player then.

Quote:
I still don't understand why you think post 1997 Messier "nullifies" the advantage he had earlier. Makarov wasn't even playing. Messier did add a whole lot to his resume in that span but it was still better than not playing. How can you take away what he had already done?
I assume you meant "didn't add." He surely added "cancer in the locker room" to his resume. He was beyond terrible in both Vancouver and NYR, playing with world's best stars. He absolutely destroyed them: both clubs repeatedly failed to make playoffs (add that to his "playoff success"). I take Makarov here in a breather.


Last edited by Sentinel: 03-29-2013 at 09:18 PM.
Sentinel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 09:16 PM
  #80
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 2,919
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shazariahl View Post
I think when someone becomes a fan, they bond on a certain level with the player, and it takes a lot for us to look past those emotional connections and look rationally at the evidence before us. Maybe its the same with Kharlamov - he was the guy people first fell in love with, and the stats or lack of dominance didn't matter. Canadians were awed by him in 72, and the Soviets seem to respect their 70's teams more than those of the 80's as well.
Pretty much. Nostalgia is a powerful thing. But, again, the "artistry" aspect is a big part of this too.

Another comparison point: any "traditional" Russian hockey fan would almost certainly rank Datsyuk above Malkin, despite latter's Art Rosses, Harts, and Conn Smyths. Datsyuk is an "artist," "a poet on ice," and that's what any traditional Russian fan appreciates more than the trophy count.

Kharlamov's legend I can live with (although I wish it wasn't at the expense of the better players like Makarov). But it blows my mind that Russians go ******* over that choker Maltsev! Do you know that there are only two hockey players with memorial medals made in their honor: Kharlamov and Maltsev? Maltsev who sucked in almost every game against serious opponents?

Anyway, I hope next time the list is made, Makarov makes serious progress. IMHO he was better than Messier and Bossy, somewhere around Rocket Richard. I know, chances he will make it that far are slim. And yet...

Sentinel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 09:29 PM
  #81
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shazariahl View Post
I think there's probably something to that as well - he had the mystique about him in the 72 series where he just impressed right out the gate and caught everyone's attention. And of course, the broken ankle kind of lends itself to the legend as well - Canada had to "take him out" because they had no chance with him in the line up, sort of thing.

Small and probably boring side-story: Growing up just outside of Edmonton during the early 80's I was fortunate enough to see many Oiler games at the start of Gretzky's NHL career. My uncle lived on the same property that my parents owned, and had a large trailer there. I used to go to his place sometimes and watch hockey games, since my own parents didn't really care about sports. My uncle was a big Bobby Hull fan, and thought Hull was the best ever. He didn't really like Gretzky because he didnt fit the mold of what Hull and Howe had been.

That finally changed the night we saw Gretzky score his 46-50th goals in his 39th game. I remember being so excited and looking over at my uncle who had a tear running down one cheek. I'd never seen him cry before. I asked him what was wrong, and he said "I was wrong [about Gretzky]. He's the best I've ever seen." I think when someone becomes a fan, they bond on a certain level with the player, and it takes a lot for us to look past those emotional connections and look rationally at the evidence before us. Maybe its the same with Kharlamov - he was the guy people first fell in love with, and the stats or lack of dominance didn't matter. Canadians were awed by him in 72, and the Soviets seem to respect their 70's teams more than those of the 80's as well.
Not a boring story at all, I like the personal touches on here, it shows that hockey attacks our heart, which it does.

You know, after Game 1 of the 1972 Series and the Soviets destroying us you would think the fans in Toronto would be throwing beer at the Soviets. Not at all. In the pregame introductions the Soviets got some polite applause. Tretiak got a big ovation. But the biggest? Kharlamov. Watch the tapes, it is amazing and hard to believe that just 40 years ago our society did a thing like that. Wouldn't happen today. Heck, I don't even know if I would do it, I think I'd be bitter. But it goes to show you that Kharlamov gained a lot of respect, just by playing in a single game at that time that Canadians had seen.

In reality, I think the broken ankle thing helps him more than anything but what often gets lost in this whole thing is that after Game 1 Kharlamov was being checked by Ron Ellis the rest of the series and this is the true reason he was less effective, not the ankle in Game 6. Very lost point that no one remembers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel View Post
In NY Messier played with Zubov, Kovalev, Tikkanen, Leetch, and Richter. Who did Makarov play with in San Jose?
Larionov. But those Sharks teams still made the playoffs. They weren't the 1975 Capitals either. Makarov played with a boatload of talent and future HHOFers on Calgary. I will maintain that the 1990 or 1991 Flames were every bit as good as those fine Ranger teams Messier played on.

Quote:
Inter-league transfer is a tricky thing. NHL stars thoroughly sucked in KHL during the 2004-05 lockout. We don't know how well would Messier do in the Soviet Elite League. Makarov had to change his whole way of life and handled it better than most. In fact, only Larionov, Fetisov, and Kamensky had greater success, and they got lucky by playing in the puck-possession clubs.
Personally I think using the NHL players thing in 2004-'05 or even earlier this year is a moot point. Yes, they don't dominate the way you would think. However, most of them are solely on a team overseas to keep in game shape. Their heart isn't in there and they don't want to get injured while playing in Russia. They have one foot on the ice and the other one waiting for the NHLPA to pen a deal. Not very focused hockey and sort of without passion if you ask me. Would you really be trying your guts out if you knew the second the NHLPA signs a deal you are gone?

And yeah I take into account Makarov had the cultural adjustment to deal with. However, his strongest season was his first one. Also, he was in the NHL for good. He had several years to adjust. But he was getting older too, so you can't fault him entirely either. Let's just say, he wasn't going back to play in Russia.

Quote:
I assume you meant "didn't add." He surely added "cancer in the locker room" to his resume. He was beyond terrible in both Vancouver and NYR, playing with world's best stars. He absolutely destroyed them: both clubs repeatedly failed to make playoffs (add that to his "playoff success." I take Makarov here in a breather.
Yes I did mean that. I don't like what Messier did post 1997 either. I think he hung around too long. But he was older too and what he did in his old age doesn't take away what he did the rest of the time. We actually saw what Messier could do in the postseason. Won a Conn Smythe over a prime Gretzky for crying out loud! Took teams by the scruff of the neck and led them to Cups. And anyone would be second fiddle to Gretzky on those Oilers teams too. But once Gretzky left he still pulled out one more Cup with that core. Ranford played spectacular, but that was Messier's team. So we can predict what Makarov does in the 1980s year in and year out for 80 game seasons and the tough grind of the postseason but we actually SAW Messier do these things.

If I am hesitant to put Makarov at Bossy's level I am sure going to do the same when it comes to Messier, even in the 1980s. Career wise it isn't very close, but even to just isolate the 1980s can you say for sure Makarov was better?

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 09:43 PM
  #82
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,340
vCash: 500
Soviet Hockey

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel View Post
In NY Messier played with Zubov, Kovalev, Tikkanen, Leetch, and Richter. Who did Makarov play with in San Jose?
But then no one else in the Soviet league of the 1980s played on CSKA as part of the Green Unit nor did anyone else play in International hockey tournaments of the 1980s as part of the Soviet Green Unit like Sergei Makarov did.

Now the point may be made, successfully, that Messier did elevate the play of the Rangers listed, to the 1994 Stanley Cup just like he did the 1990 Oilers without Wayne Gretzky.

Conversely it may be shown that Sergei Makarov raised the play of the other four Green Unit members during the 1980s just like they raised his performance. However did this reciprocal relationship continue in the NHL? 1989 Flames won the Stanley Cup. When Makarov joined them for the start of the 1989-90 season were the Flames a better team? On paper, yes. In reality, a definite no.

The Messier issue with Vancouver and his second Rangers stint overlooks an important question. Were the two teams of championship quality before Messier joined them? They were definitely not.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 10:25 PM
  #83
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 2,919
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
The Messier issue with Vancouver and his second Rangers stint overlooks an important question. Were the two teams of championship quality before Messier joined them? They were definitely not.
They definitely were, are you kidding me? In Vancouver he played with Bure and Mogilny. That line alone should have brought them playoffs (and even the Cup), really. In NYR he played with Lindros, Fleury, Bure, Nedved, Holik, and Jagr! Again, should have won the Cup, let alone make playoffs! Give me a break!

As for the 89-95, are you really telling me that Flames + Sharks were comparable to Oilers + Rangers? Again, give me a break!


Last edited by Sentinel: 03-29-2013 at 11:27 PM.
Sentinel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2013, 12:37 AM
  #84
seekritdude
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 126
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Makarov was a player who relied a lot on his speed when he was in his prime. Is it any surprise that he didn't work out in Dallas when he was 38 years old?
Shrug im just commenting on the whole why did the wings pick up larionov and not makarov. You could also say remember the wings gave up sheppard who was coming off 2 pretty decent seasons himself. Although a right wing, which in that sense perhaps switching him for makarov would have been better line wise. As the wings remember were already very strong down the middle as it bumped primeau even further down. Which of course lead to him being traded.

Again as I said makarov was already the year before not to excited about playing unless larionov was in the line up. Also the sharks went through a lot of turmoil that year and that I recall makarov is a much more private person then say larionov and rarely would agree to do interviews or anything. I can only assume at that point makarovs love of the game was pretty low, where as larionov wanted to win "more"? But shrug what do I know.... Just a random fan...






Also as for the comment who did makarov play for when he played on san jose. Well he generally played with ozolinsh, garpenlov, larinov, and norton. Thats a pretty decent line. Decent enough that it out played most other teams line. And was the best line against a red wing team that had the likes of yzerman, a heart trophy fed etc. Second year he generally played with whitney instead of garpenlov.. and I forget who was on ozolinishs other defensemen. Although they were bumped to second line in favor of jannys line and locker room politics...But san jose stuck to there line combos when it involved larionov and makarov. Only center that regualrly played with diff people that I recalled was baker.

seekritdude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2013, 02:07 AM
  #85
Hammer Time
Registered User
 
Hammer Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel View Post
In NY Messier played with Zubov, Kovalev, Tikkanen, Leetch, and Richter. Who did Makarov play with in San Jose?



Inter-league transfer is a tricky thing. NHL stars thoroughly sucked in KHL during the 2004-05 lockout. We don't know how well would Messier do in the Soviet Elite League. Makarov had to change his whole way of life and handled it better than most. In fact, only Larionov, Fetisov, and Kamensky had greater success, and they got lucky by playing in the puck-possession clubs.

But, like I said: fine, Messier was a better player then.



I assume you meant "didn't add." He surely added "cancer in the locker room" to his resume. He was beyond terrible in both Vancouver and NYR, playing with world's best stars. He absolutely destroyed them: both clubs repeatedly failed to make playoffs (add that to his "playoff success"). I take Makarov here in a breather.
The Canucks were an absolute mess during Messier's captaincy, but he still scored 52 goals in those three seasons. So are you saying that if Messier wasn't there, the rest of the team would have managed to get 53 or more additional goals? I wish.

And blaming Messier for missing the playoffs in Vancouver is like blaming Martin St. Louis for the Lightning not being in the playoffs now. For example, those were the "goalie graveyard" years when Garth Snow was the usual starter. There were a lot of other problems there, he was just the scapegoat because he had a big contract and had defeated the Canucks in the finals a few years earlier.

Hammer Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2013, 09:42 AM
  #86
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 666
vCash: 500
Wasn't Makarov a disruptive presence in Calgary too? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/memory-of-89-flames-still-drives-gary-roberts/article1914255/

blogofmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2013, 10:00 AM
  #87
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,340
vCash: 500
Integrate a Team

Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
The ability or willingness to integrate a team. Players adapt to successful teams.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2013, 10:18 AM
  #88
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 2,919
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meteor View Post
The Canucks were an absolute mess during Messier's captaincy, but he still scored 52 goals in those three seasons. So are you saying that if Messier wasn't there, the rest of the team would have managed to get 53 or more additional goals? I wish.

And blaming Messier for missing the playoffs in Vancouver is like blaming Martin St. Louis for the Lightning not being in the playoffs now. For example, those were the "goalie graveyard" years when Garth Snow was the usual starter. There were a lot of other problems there, he was just the scapegoat because he had a big contract and had defeated the Canucks in the finals a few years earlier.
I haven't heard anybody accusing St. Louis of being a "locker room cancer," unlike Messier. I don't know if they would get 52 goals from other sources (although 17 goals a season is hardly a remarkable accomplishment), but they would probably make the playoffs. With Bure, Mogilny, and Linden (who wouldn't have gotten traded if it wasn't for Messier) and competent coaching, no reason for them not to. Same with the Rangers. Seriously, it's ten times better to retire, than to destroy one's team like Messier did.

Sentinel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2013, 10:34 AM
  #89
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 2,919
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seekritdude View Post
Also as for the comment who did makarov play for when he played on san jose. Well he generally played with ozolinsh, garpenlov, larinov, and norton. Thats a pretty decent line. Decent enough that it out played most other teams line. And was the best line against a red wing team that had the likes of yzerman, a heart trophy fed etc. Second year he generally played with whitney instead of garpenlov.. and I forget who was on ozolinishs other defensemen.
All decent players, but if you compare them to all those stars on the Oilers and the Rangers, Messier played with much better lineups. This certainly accounts for a portion of his stats in 89-95.

To sum up:

1980s: Makarov (higher peak, longer prime, 9 scoring titles, 3 MVPs) > Messier (never won a scoring title, never scored 50 goals).
1989-1995: Makarov (Calder) < Messier (2 Harts, Conn Smythe).
1996-2004: Makarov >> Messier, simply by not doing what Messier did to both of his clubs.


Last edited by Sentinel: 03-30-2013 at 11:44 AM.
Sentinel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2013, 10:50 AM
  #90
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 2,919
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
A fun read.

Roberts was remembering how Makarov would just shake his head, whenever he didn't put a pass right on the tape of his stick.

"Sergei would always tell us what to do," said Roberts. "He would go, 'why Robs why, dump puck in? You go get puck if you dump it in.' Then he'd say, 'Robs, Robs, puck on tape, Robs.' And I'd say: 'Sergei, you're going to get some pucks in your skates; that's just the way it is.' Or he'd go: 'Robs, why you yell for puck?' Just go to net, puck will be on stick."
Vintage Makarov

Sentinel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2013, 01:33 PM
  #91
seekritdude
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 126
vCash: 500
lol I dont remember that article posted off hand but it could very well be true. All I recall is nieuwendyk once giving makarov a sorta kovalevish sorta comment on how he was the best if he wanted to be. And he was excited when he was coming back to play with him in dallas of course it did not work out.

I remember there being more drama about larionov then makarov though.. My fuzzy memories of the events of those days were something..

93-94 season starts larionov is injured on and off through out the year. Sharks stink it up, and makarov doesnt want to play with out larionov. Eventually towards the last second half of the season larionov tells constantine to let him take care of makarov so he agrees to let those guys be a 5 man group. And they only play with each other and they dont have to dump the puck or follow the same rules as everyone else. And then Elik got his own line, and baker would randomly get everyone else that is left. Sharks go on a tear and the last thrid of the season or something they are the third best team in the league behind the rangers and toronoto I think it was.

The next year is the lock out, larionov is injurned on and off again. Irbe can barely make a fist and is random as ****. Somedays he steals games, some days he puts the goal in his own net or literally passes it to the wrong team. (funny note just to mention as I am of course a Irbe fan boy.. I think he got more vesnia votes this year, then 94. And then in 99 where up to the last week or 2 of the season he had the best stats in the league.. go figure that one out)Lombardi goes from saying how important all the players are, to only larionov is safe basically. Again makarov doenst seem to want to play with out larionov. And they start breaking up there clique one by one in no specific order, elik, garpenlov, norton, duchesne, errey(the captin at the time. I think at the time there were reports that larionov had gotten in a argument with errey, and if you recall once larionov was also traded to the wings. The wings then got rid of errey but ive never seen anything from those 2 to say as much. )yadda yadda.. Players start getting pissed. Lots of random **** talk about management and how they are getting rid of all the players that just a year ago helped them. They bring in Janny and make him their first line center and bump larionov and makarov down to second line so they dont have as much freedom. I think at some point larionov either gets his assistant captin taken away or he refuses to be it? Whatever its a cluster**** that I remember.

Next year starts they dont sign makarov... Basically larionov is by himself, constatine starts dressing him but not playing him and even benchs him a entire game or something? And he is traded.

I dont recall if constantine and larionov ever made up, but I know he did have good things to say about him years later. Though never vise versa that I saw.

seekritdude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2013, 02:05 PM
  #92
unknown33
Registered User
 
unknown33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Europe
Country: Marshall Islands
Posts: 3,393
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
The ability or willingness to integrate a team. Players adapt to successful teams.
I'm sure Canadians would have done an outstanding job adapting in the Soviet Union/Russia.

unknown33 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 07:23 AM
  #93
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 2,919
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by unknown33 View Post
I'm sure Canadians would have done an outstanding job adapting in the Soviet Union/Russia.
This was already addressed. In KHL Richards, Lecavalier, Kane, etc. thoroughly sucked. Surely for them it was just a way for them to stay in the game shape, but come on, they were being paid (substantially)! Doesn't one owe it to their employer?

I think now it's time to compare Makarov to the Flower and the Rocket. I claim that he was better than Lafleur and at least as good as Richard. Arguments?

Sentinel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 07:59 AM
  #94
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,340
vCash: 500
2004-05 khl

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel View Post
This was already addressed. In KHL Richards, Lecavalier, Kane, etc. thoroughly sucked. Surely for them it was just a way for them to stay in the game shape, but come on, they were being paid (substantially)! Doesn't one owe it to their employer?

I think now it's time to compare Makarov to the Flower and the Rocket. I claim that he was better than Lafleur and at least as good as Richard. Arguments?
2004-05 KHL team stats for Richards and Lecavalier:

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/l...023912005.html

Compare favourably to Kovalchuk, Kovalev who were their teammates with the advantage of playing the full season.

Do not know which Kane you are referring to. Patrick Kane was playing U18 junior hockey in NA that season.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 08:17 AM
  #95
Franck
Insolent Upstart
 
Franck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gothenburg
Country: Sweden
Posts: 7,936
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
2004-05 KHL team stats for Richards and Lecavalier:

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/l...023912005.html

Compare favourably to Kovalchuk, Kovalev who were their teammates with the advantage of playing the full season.

Do not know which Kane you are referring to. Patrick Kane was playing U18 junior hockey in NA that season.
He's talking about Evander Kane, who did a terrible job at Dynamo Minsk.

Anyway, this thread makes me wish the English-language version of CCCP Hockey was publicly available. It's a really interesting look at the lives of the Green Unit and one of the best hockey documentaries I've seen.


Last edited by Franck: 04-01-2013 at 08:29 AM.
Franck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 08:38 AM
  #96
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,340
vCash: 500
Typical NHL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Franck View Post
He's talking about Evander Kane, who did a terrible job at Dynamo Minsk.

Anyway, this thread makes me wish the English-language version of CCCP Hockey was publicly available. It's a really interesting look at the lives of the Green Unit and one of the best hockey documentaries I've seen.
Typical of his NHL efforts. Evander Kane does not play to his talent level every game. More weak games than good. Why would anyone expect a different performance elsewhere?

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 03:23 PM
  #97
Zine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 8,896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Typical of his NHL efforts. Evander Kane does not play to his talent level every game. More weak games than good. Why would anyone expect a different performance elsewhere?
It wasn't just effort. His skill set didn't translate very well. He just wasn't very good.

Zine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 03:29 PM
  #98
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,340
vCash: 500
Inappropriate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zine View Post
It wasn't just effort. His skill set didn't translate very well. He just wasn't very good.
Your comments explain the fact that KHL teams are just as likely to sign inappropriate players for their name value as NHL teams.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 03:37 PM
  #99
Zine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 8,896
vCash: 500
Soviet Union is quite different from Russia of today....and a universe away of from the West.

To downgrade the very first wave of Soviet 'pioneers' because they had difficulties adjusting or integrating is crazy. The fact that a run-down Makarov could step right into the NHL shows outstanding ability and perseverance.

One could only imagine an over-the-hill Messier, Esposito or Lafleur trying to adjust to Soviet life and Soviet hockey. Tikhonov would have destroyed them.
I would have loved to then heard N.A.'s reactions to Soviets then saying "Messier and LaFleur at Makarov level? Those guys didn't have the hockey ability to integrate and adapt....and they were only as good as Gerasimov!!".


Last edited by Zine: 04-01-2013 at 03:58 PM.
Zine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 03:55 PM
  #100
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,375
vCash: 500
I really don't think the KHL is relevant in these discussions. I mean, we're using Evander Kane as an example here. Let's face one thing here, when the NHLers play overseas they are doing it solely for purposes to keep in game shape. I think it's wrong personally for them to go over there but we don't have to worry about this crap for another 10 years so who cares? But are you really focused on your team and your game when you have one ear to the ground waiting for your NHLPA to pen a deal? You aren't giving near 100% regardless of what you say.

As for Makarov, he was 31 in 1989, which I consider, but he was there for good. He wasn't going back to Russia. He could focus 100% on the NHL and not look back. So I think after a season or so you'd think a player should start to be aware of their surroundings. It also was Makarov's best season, so I think the transition for him was pretty good.

Big Phil 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 01:58 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.