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.

Did the Soviets Ever Win?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-10-2012, 03:09 AM
  #51
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Theokritos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow View Post
Ignore the political aspect on that front, think of the Ajax school of soccer and how they teach soccer, Dutch players know how to play in a 4-3-3 almost instinctively because of how their particular style is implemented in the youth programs. The system is the key, it's a uniform approach and it works.
...
Just when I thought it's time to mention Ajax, you deliver.
Maybe a system can make a player look better than he really is. Then again, a system like the Dutch requires every single player on the pitch to fulfill his task. If only one player fails to do so, the whole system falls apart. You don't move in the right place at the right time and the whole setup becomes dysfunctional. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Football) says quite rightly that totaalvoetbal "places high technical and physical demands" on the players. Add tactical demands. I've never heard anyone saying Johan Cruijff wasn't really one of the best players ever and that it was the system that made him look good. Or watch Edgar Davids in the 2004 European Championship against the Czech Republic and tell me it's the the system that makes him look brilliant.

Theokritos is offline  
Old
01-10-2012, 04:35 AM
  #52
HabsByTheBay
Registered User
 
HabsByTheBay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London
Country: United States
Posts: 1,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
No it really didn't. It is great that the Soviets were beating up on the also rans in the WC but it has no bearing on what would happen best on best even if you interpret the results to mean they were at a peak of beating up on the also rans.

The only time a Team Canada with a reasonable amount of prep time loses is in single elimination - flukes being the nature of single elimination. In a series - we win any time, any place.

Everyone is the best at something. And I am not settling for maple syrup.

HabsByTheBay is offline  
Old
01-10-2012, 04:43 AM
  #53
Reds4Life
Registered User
 
Reds4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Czech Republic
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,545
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
No it really didn't. It is great that the Soviets were beating up on the also rans in the WC but it has no bearing on what would happen best on best even if you interpret the results to mean they were at a peak of beating up on the also rans.

The only time a Team Canada with a reasonable amount of prep time loses is in single elimination - flukes being the nature of single elimination. In a series - we win any time, any place.

Everyone is the best at something. And I am not settling for maple syrup.
Agreed. Even if talent level was even (it is not), Canada simply has that mental edge..go all in, all the time.
Even today, no other nation can match that over a best-vs-best series IMHO, so Canada would win pretty much all the time. US would probably be the toughest opponent assuming the game was played on the small rink.

Reds4Life is offline  
Old
01-10-2012, 04:51 AM
  #54
jekoh
Registered User
 
jekoh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarriorofTime View Post
What is this based off of? 1972 Summit Series is the only good example of this and was 4-3-1. If that's all you're basing this off then I'm not sure if that statement can be so boldly proclaimed. Soviets and Canadians were about even.
1972 is pretty irrelevant anyway since Canada merely beat an also-ran.

jekoh is offline  
Old
01-10-2012, 05:23 AM
  #55
Corto
Faceless Man
 
Corto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Braavos
Country: Croatia
Posts: 13,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post

The only time a Team Canada with a reasonable amount of prep time loses is in single elimination - flukes being the nature of single elimination. In a series - we win any time, any place.

Everyone is the best at something. And I am not settling for maple syrup.

And that's why people are annoyed with Canadian fans and consider them worse than English football fans.

A - single elimination games matter..... You lost vs Sweden, Czech Rep., Finland, USA, Russia, all the other big countries over the past few Olympics and completely failed to deliver (no medals) in the tournament that weren't held in NA

B - even the series thing is suspect.
1972 was won on the back on a cheap shot and a deliberate injury to a player, and 1987 was Koharski-ed, regardless of how ridiculously great that Canadian team was.

That said, the ONLY real series was the Summit Series, and like most people will agree, it was really close, and who knows what would've happened had Ferguson and Clarke not went neanderthal on Kharlamov.
******* it, I could win games that way. If they're better, injure them, til they play someone who isn't better than me.
Awesome concept really.

Corto is offline  
Old
01-10-2012, 07:00 AM
  #56
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,307
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsByTheBay View Post
This is the only exception I can think of and that still took a freakishly amazing goaltending performance by Richter in the final.

I like to think that it would have been different if the best player in the world had been healthy enough to play for Canada. Not to mention missing Roy/Bourque as usual, too.

I don't know what it is exactly, but Canada seems to have a way to rachet up during series they are in tough.

BraveCanadian is offline  
Old
01-10-2012, 07:10 AM
  #57
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,307
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corto View Post
And that's why people are annoyed with Canadian fans and consider them worse than English football fans.

A - single elimination games matter..... You lost vs Sweden, Czech Rep., Finland, USA, Russia, all the other big countries over the past few Olympics and completely failed to deliver (no medals) in the tournament that weren't held in NA
Worse than soccer hooligans huh? Oh well, we are nice about everything else but we're the best in hockey. Deal with it.

Of course single elimination games matter.

They just don't really prove who is better because in any given game a lucky/bad call, bounce, or single performance can affect the outcome completely.

ie. The Miracle on Ice. They could have played each other 100 times and the Russians would have won 90 of them, but in single elimination when the stars align the US is going on for gold.

Quote:
B - even the series thing is suspect.
1972 was won on the back on a cheap shot and a deliberate injury to a player, and 1987 was Koharski-ed, regardless of how ridiculously great that Canadian team was.

That said, the ONLY real series was the Summit Series, and like most people will agree, it was really close, and who knows what would've happened had Ferguson and Clarke not went neanderthal on Kharlamov.
******* it, I could win games that way. If they're better, injure them, til they play someone who isn't better than me.
Awesome concept really.
I am the first one to admit that I am a ashamed of Clarke gooning Kharlamov - the political atmosphere doesn't really excuse it for me even if I understand it when they say so - and you're right the series was close.

However, I think that the presence of Hull/Orr would swing things in favour of Canada much more than the partial absence of Kharlamov cost the Soviets. Secondly, the Canadian players were thrown together and took the Russians lightly (and were far behind them in conditioning).

I think we would have seen a different outcome if Team Canada had all its best players and then had some prep time to familiarize themselves to each other and work on their conditioning.

The Soviets shocked the NHL players with how far they had come.

BraveCanadian is offline  
Old
01-10-2012, 03:26 PM
  #58
canucksfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 26,459
vCash: 500
I think the Callenge Cup counts as a series. The Soviets dominated the NHL quite easily.

canucksfan is offline  
Old
01-10-2012, 04:18 PM
  #59
saskganesh
Registered User
 
saskganesh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the Annex
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucksfan View Post
I think the Callenge Cup counts as a series. The Soviets dominated the NHL quite easily.
I think so as well. Dismissing Soviet (or other) wins as outliers, freakish occurrences or lucky one-offs seems like a cheap argument.

If we always have to degrade our opponents, it makes our frequent victories meaningless. There is no shame in recognising an opponent's ability.

saskganesh is offline  
Old
01-10-2012, 05:34 PM
  #60
canucksfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 26,459
vCash: 500
If you look from 72' to 87' Canada and the Soviets were pretty much even.

72' Canada won.

74' Soviets won.

76' Canada won.

79' Challenge Cup Soviets won.

81' Soviets won

84 and 87 Canada won. Outside of the first two series all of the rest were played in North America. An advantage Canada had. The Soviets dominated the club games and the World Championships. The Soviets also won more World Juniors.

Canada also used NHL refs after 81' as well.

canucksfan is offline  
Old
01-10-2012, 05:54 PM
  #61
TheMoreYouKnow
Registered User
 
TheMoreYouKnow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Eire
Posts: 9,198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
Just when I thought it's time to mention Ajax, you deliver.
Maybe a system can make a player look better than he really is. Then again, a system like the Dutch requires every single player on the pitch to fulfill his task. If only one player fails to do so, the whole system falls apart. You don't move in the right place at the right time and the whole setup becomes dysfunctional. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Football) says quite rightly that totaalvoetbal "places high technical and physical demands" on the players. Add tactical demands. I've never heard anyone saying Johan Cruijff wasn't really one of the best players ever and that it was the system that made him look good. Or watch Edgar Davids in the 2004 European Championship against the Czech Republic and tell me it's the the system that makes him look brilliant.
Obviously the Russians had individual quality, the Green Unit would have been excellent NHL players in their primes, the point was they had an obvious team chemistry advantage over the Canadian outfits they usually faced.

TheMoreYouKnow is offline  
Old
01-10-2012, 06:35 PM
  #62
zorz
Registered User
 
zorz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corto View Post
That may be true up until Nagano.

In the 4 Olympics since then, Canada has won both tournaments on North American soil, but lost out in both Turin and Nagano
(though in Nagano it was just bad timing, Hasek and Jagr at the height of their games were always gonna be hard to beat, regardless of their poor supporting cast).

Canada is still #1, no doubt, but they're not dominant, nor were they at any point in the last 40 years, no matter how hard they want it to be so.

...

Russia?
They've had a fairly tough period post-98, but look to be coming back to life (apart from the awful outing vs Canada in Vancouver).
There wasn't any poor suporting cast. The best (overall) team won, simple as that.

zorz is offline  
Old
01-10-2012, 07:07 PM
  #63
canucksfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 26,459
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zorz View Post
There wasn't any poor suporting cast. The best (overall) team won, simple as that.
Definitely. People seem to think that Canada dominated the Czechs and hasek won them the game. Not true. The Czechs out shot Canada and the play was even.

canucksfan is offline  
Old
01-10-2012, 08:52 PM
  #64
McGuillicuddy
Registered User
 
McGuillicuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 892
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucksfan View Post
Definitely. People seem to think that Canada dominated the Czechs and hasek won them the game. Not true. The Czechs out shot Canada and the play was even.
That's how I remember it as well. Canada deserved no better fate than it got.

McGuillicuddy is offline  
Old
01-29-2012, 04:13 AM
  #65
Sergei DRW
Registered User
 
Sergei DRW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Ukraine
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 400
vCash: 500
1987 Canada Cup should never be mentioned as a great Canadian feat.

With normal and consistent refereeing, this trophy goes to Soviet Union 10 times out of 10.
This was the peak of the career for Larionov, Krutov, Makarov and the defense core.
Plus, the up and coming Bykov-Kamensky-Khomutov line delivered a needed second-line punch.

That whole series was "Koharski"-ed all the way.

Sergei DRW is offline  
Old
01-29-2012, 06:04 AM
  #66
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zorz View Post
There wasn't any poor suporting cast. The best (overall) team won, simple as that.
I agree that the best team won. I don't think any of the top teams were expecting that the Czech's would use such a smothering defensive style in the '98 games. On the flip side I should say that while Jagr and Hasek were the best players in the world at the time the rest of the Czech roster got pretty thin after the top ten players or so, especially now that enough time has passed that we can look back on the career achievements of those players.

The Czech victory was well deserved but I think it was primarily due to the system they played rather than superior talent.

Mr Kanadensisk is offline  
Old
01-29-2012, 04:15 PM
  #67
steveott
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forty View Post
Were any Soviet players actually as good as guys like Gretzky and Lemieux(87 right)? Or is that hogwash.
.
Makarov quote (not exact): "we can stop/outskate gretzky but for stopping lemieux we should need a rinkwide tank")

Mario was number 1 at that tournament. Some 3 russians and gretzky were at the next tier. Overall soviets had an edge and better team.

steveott is offline  
Old
01-29-2012, 04:18 PM
  #68
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,693
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveott View Post
Makarov quote (not exact): "we can stop/outskate gretzky but for stopping lemieux we should need a rinkwide tank")

Mario was number 1 at that tournament. Some 3 russians and gretzky were at the next tier. Overall soviets had an edge and better team.
Gretzky won MVP of that tournament

TheDevilMadeMe is online now  
Old
01-29-2012, 04:24 PM
  #69
steveott
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Gretzky won MVP of that tournament
yes he did. so what?
i have all those games taped.

BTW: makarov quote is AFTER tournament


Last edited by steveott: 01-29-2012 at 04:31 PM.
steveott is offline  
Old
01-29-2012, 05:52 PM
  #70
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveott View Post
yes he did. so what?
i have all those games taped.

BTW: makarov quote is AFTER tournament
Just think if Gretzky, Lemieux, Hawerchuk, Borque and Macinnis were a line that played together all year. It's almost imcomprehensible to imagine how good they would have been.

Mr Kanadensisk is offline  
Old
01-29-2012, 05:56 PM
  #71
tombombadil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: West Kelowna, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by saskganesh View Post
I think so as well. Dismissing Soviet (or other) wins as outliers, freakish occurrences or lucky one-offs seems like a cheap argument.

If we always have to degrade our opponents, it makes our frequent victories meaningless. There is no shame in recognising an opponent's ability.
Thankyou. I was getting pretty irritated until i read this. Well said.

tombombadil is offline  
Old
01-29-2012, 06:03 PM
  #72
Uncle Rotter
Registered User
 
Uncle Rotter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Kelowna, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,341
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergei DRW View Post
1987 Canada Cup should never be mentioned as a great Canadian feat.

With normal and consistent refereeing, this trophy goes to Soviet Union 10 times out of 10.
This was the peak of the career for Larionov, Krutov, Makarov and the defense core.
Plus, the up and coming Bykov-Kamensky-Khomutov line delivered a needed second-line punch.

That whole series was "Koharski"-ed all the way.
Funny, the same Soviet team was tied 0-0 by the Canadian B team at the World Championships a few months earlier. Was that due to the refs?

Uncle Rotter is offline  
Old
01-30-2012, 08:54 AM
  #73
McGuillicuddy
Registered User
 
McGuillicuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 892
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveott View Post
yes he did. so what?
i have all those games taped.

BTW: makarov quote is AFTER tournament
So do I and Gretzky was outstanding. I don't doubt Makarov thought they could outskate Gretzky. But if they could have 'stopped' him then game 3 probably would have been a good time to do it.

McGuillicuddy is offline  
Old
01-30-2012, 07:27 PM
  #74
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 29,239
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
This is all true, but it doesn't change the fact that before the 1981 Canada Cup, the Trio Grande Line and Denis Potvin had years to develop chemistry, while the Green Unit only had a few months.
The Trio Grande and Potvin were busy winning four straight Cups. This was secondary.

Oh and while you are laying the '81 loss at their feet, might want to look up what the legendary Toe Blake told Bill Torrey walking out on the corridor of the Coliseum immediately following NYI's game against the Soviet traveling team, February '80.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jekoh View Post
1972 is pretty irrelevant anyway since Canada merely beat an also-ran.


That's interesting. Forty years later, learn something, um, new. Care to explain?


Last edited by Trottier: 01-30-2012 at 07:32 PM.
Trottier is offline  
Old
01-30-2012, 08:14 PM
  #75
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 51,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
No one here cares too much about those when the real playoffs are on.
back then, only half of the best player in the world were in the NHL. Thjere were no nhl playoffs for the soviets, czechs, swedes or finns.

Fish on The Sand is online now  
Closed Thread

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 03:38 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.