HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > All Time Draft
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
All Time Draft Fantasy league where players of the past and present meet.

ATD 12 Bob Cole Quater-Finals: 3 Regina Pats vs. 6 New York Golden Blades

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-27-2009, 02:18 AM
  #26
Reds4Life
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Reds4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Czech Republic
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,517
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jareklajkosz View Post
Anyone else who chooses to believe that Tarasov is not a good coach, or a good coach for our team or whatever, please please PLEASE read the bio seventies put together on him. Tarasov is one of the greatest strategists in hockey of all time in my opinion. He used very unorthodox methods, but clearly they worked, as he had an over 80% winning percentage as a coach. Everything about him is about being prepared to outlast your opponent, and that if you can handle his tough training methods, then the games should be a lot easier. Take a look at many of his training methods. Many of them put his players into extreme situations, but many of those players always trusted and believed in Tarasov's methods. Just ask Tretiak or Kharlamov. Tretiak trusted every word Tarasov said, and Kharlamov was quoted as saying the training he went through under him was worth it. He's all about winning, and the results prove it.
Yeah, but those were Russian players. Different culture than your North American players. I really doubt the likes of Coffey, Staal, Ratelle etc would put up with his methods. Just my opinion anyways.

Reds4Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 04:24 AM
  #27
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,476
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reds4Life View Post
Yeah, but those were Russian players. Different culture than your North American players. I really doubt the likes of Coffey, Staal, Ratelle etc would put up with his methods. Just my opinion anyways.
I wholeheartedly agree with that. Russian players bought into Tarasov's system, but as GBC alluded to, it is a very communist system, no one player stands out. Of course Communists will buy into such a system, but how would NA players, who are used to being a standout on some nights and have played that way all their lives, adapt to a system like that? And it will be these guys adapting, as Tarasov won't be adapting to anything. I also see this system hurting Regina big time in the sense that if they're in tough, and need someone to put the team on his back and lead them out of a hole, it can't really happen. The system forbids it. And while Tarasov might like a player like Paul Coffey in terms of what he brings, his system takes away a lot of Coffey's dynamic ability, and reduces him to being simply a talented blueliner within the system. That could be huge, as this system really could take probably Regina's best weapon.

Also, I think Tarasov and Plante could be a combination that could really hurt this team. Plante had asthma, and Tarasov ran his goalies ragged. Three practices a day as hard as you can go? Plante won't put up with that, nor should he in his condition, and Tarasov will make no exceptions. This could be interesting, as Tarasov's system and his ways could greatly upset Regina's two best players. Kind of hard to win when that happens.

Gibsons Finest is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 05:31 AM
  #28
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,933
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Ryan Getzlaf View Post
Of course Communists will buy into such a system
What makes you think the Russian players were Communists? They lived in a Communist "country", but that doesn't mean they believed in the idea.

Actually, the fact that the team even had a coach (and captains) kind of proves that they didn't buy into the collectivist ideals of Communism.

Also, you keep talking about Tarasov's rigid system... can you explain his system to us?

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 06:56 AM
  #29
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,476
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
What makes you think the Russian players were Communists? They lived in a Communist "country", but that doesn't mean they believed in the idea.

Actually, the fact that the team even had a coach (and captains) kind of proves that they didn't buy into the collectivist ideals of Communism.

Also, you keep talking about Tarasov's rigid system... can you explain his system to us?
Well, I'd rather not make this a political debate, but I think it's safe to assume the majority were. The Soviet Union was obviously a communist state, and there seemed to be little to no uprising of any kind. Considering all the propoganda and whatnot being fed to them, I'd say the majority of Russians at the time were probably communist. We obviously have no way of knowing unless we asked them, but the ratio of communists on those Soviet Union team is probably the same as advocates for democracy on the Canadian teams. And I do know Tretiak was one for sure. Haven't found anything on the others.

And that proves that they didn't buy into communism? Hardly. Maybe that they didn't buy into the ideal of true communism, but the Soviet Union didn't either. With the soviet union, there was always the uncomprimising, unquestionable leader. Kind of like Tarasov.

As for his system, I guess it's not his system that's so rigid, but his methods. He worked his players to the bone and was a very, very demanding coach. No different than some NHL coaches, one might say, but a lot of Soviet players really took a dive once they hit 30 or so. This didn't happen under guys like Bowman. Not saying it's necessarily a bad quality for an ATD coach, but it does show that his system was quite demanding.

Gibsons Finest is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 07:21 AM
  #30
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,476
vCash: 500
I think two things are going to win this series for us: Regina's first defense pairing and Tarasov's unbinding ways. I'll explain further.

Regina has a very nice top pairing, two very good defensemen, but I think we're going to exploit it. Exploit a team's top pairing, I must be crazy, right? Well, not necessarily exploit it for how weak it is but for how it weakens the team. You see, Hap Day is most certainly his best defensive defenseman, and the other 4 don't scare me at all. James Patrick was a solid defensive defenseman in the NHL, and Svehla was decent as well, but by ATD standards neither are great. And little can be inferred about how good the Patrick brothers were defensively. Either way, no real standouts. Now my forwards might not be the greatest out there, but I like to think I've got quite a bit of scoring talent, and some rushing upside from the blueline. I don't think any of those four defenseman he has past Day can really shut down my guys at all, so I think Plante might be facing quite a few shots. He might be the greatest of all-time, but even he's vulnerable when there's a mis-match. You can have the best checkling line hockey has ever seen, but it won't matter a whole heck of a lot if the defensemen they're paired with are below-average defensively. But what's that you say? Use Day in a shutdown role? Fine by me. That simply put Coffey out there against my best offensive players, which could be a recipe for disaster. And even if you don't buy into that, using Coffey in a shutdown role takes away arguably the best offensive weapon on his team.

As for Tarasov, something I couldn't help but notice is that he's basically always been in control of a dynasty. He was ahead of the curve in developing talent in the Soviet Union, as well as most of Europe, which is an amazing accomplishment. Except it created somewhat of an unkown in this ATD setting: how does Tarasov react to adversity? He developed his players so well that he never really received a challenge for the most part of his career, he was always well ahead of the competition. But when the going gets tough, what does Tarasov do? Tarasov does not seem to be the type of coach to go out and make adjustments when needed, not one bit. So, basically, what that could translate to is should his we expose his system and capitalize on his aggressiveness and pepper Plante, his way of stopping it would likely to be more aggressive, or at least still be as aggressive.

You see, in Hitchcock's system, we're basically going to sit back, play it conservative, and pounce when we get the chance. jarek alluded that Tarasov's aggressive system is the way to beat the trap, but at the same time Hitchock's system is the way to beat aggression. Basically, I see this series coming down to who executes their system the best. My team features a great deal of guys who are extremely coachable and will do anything to win. His features 17 of 18 skaters who could very well have problems with Tarasov(this isn't a shot at the players but rather Tarasov).

Gibsons Finest is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 09:35 AM
  #31
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,476
vCash: 500
Also, something to note about the PCHA. I'm not sure how many people realize this, or care to admit it, but the total amount of players in that league was 23. Minus the two reserves and three goaltenders, and that's 18 total skaters for the entire league. So, really, if you finished 10th in league scoring, you were actually quite below average. I find that very interesting.

Gibsons Finest is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 09:43 AM
  #32
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
My God.

You think Tarasov won't adjust when the going gets tough? Oh my God, now I am CERTAIN you didn't read the bio! He adjusted alright, he adjusted so much so that his teams came out and made their opponents shake in their skates. Observe:

The reason he didn't "need" to adjust is because his players were so well prepared that the games seemed easy compared to the training:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Road To Olympus, regarding 1967 WC
Once again we have the athleticism of our soviet players to be thankful for. We had more than enough strength to last all through the tournament including the most intensive training sessions at the time of the tournament. Anyone who closely followed the training periods and games of the USSR team, could not help seeing how much the boys wanted to train and play. And it was our physical prowess that was responsible to a great extent for our victory against the Canadians. Many of the overseas players were already tired in the 2nd period. They could not take the blistering pace we set.
Now, I'm sure in modern day hockey, players are far more in shape than they were back then, no? So wouldn't that mean that his training methods wouldn't be as harsh on these guys as the Soviets? Here are some examples:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Road To Olympus Foreword
Occasionally he would take a playful kick at the ball, knocking it out of someone's reach, and complicating the game. He was driving his men, but with such good humour he had them laughing frequently, and enjoying the workout.

Next he broke the men into three groups and began a combination of games on three separate basketball courts. On one court, two opposing teams played a combination of soccer and basketball simultaneously. They both used a soccer ball and a basketball and bodychecking was not only permitted, but encouraged. Sometimes a player would find himself dribbling both balls simultaneously, or blocking one gall while trying to pass the other, or just getting set for a shot on the basket when he would be sent sprawling by a stiff bodycheck, or wrestled to the ground.

The inexhaustible Tarasov ran from court to court, booting the ball and throwing the odd bodycheck into an unwary player. It was a great game for teaching a hockey player to keep his head up. If he didn't, he was liable to lose it.
Not a bad idea, huh? Certainly this would translate well to a game, and further establish the idea of ever-changing situations. Not only that, but if you read the first passage, Tarasov also seemed to get his players to enjoy these drills as well!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Road To Olympus
In that morning we did our physical exercises, and it turned out that on that grey, rainy morning, we were the only team that had dared perform such a "feat". Journalists, sportsmen, team leaders, representatives of many delegations looked at us with amazement, and a bit of envy... after all, not every hockey player is so disciplined and industrious. We decided from the outset to show our opponents that our intentions were serious and that we do everything to win. We even brought with us that "mysterious" 13 kg belt which the boys wore during training. Of course, it is not easy to skate around with such a heavy burden, but when you take it off, you seem light as a feather and you skate as if you really had wings. By demonstrating this belt, we did not hide our intentions to the importance of athletic and physical training.
Skating would be a lot easier after that, no?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Road To Olympus
The last Sunday before leaving for Vienna, we were invited to a country house of the Young Communist League. We spent a half day there, playing volleyball with them. I was the referee and, taking advantage of this, I decided to make decisions not in their favour - I wanted to know whether they were ready for unfair refereeing, even the most obvious. The hockey team won the first game, but dropped the next one and immediately began to complain. But I told them that in Vienna they could run into much worse and they should be ready for it... As we drove back in our bus, I noticed the change in the mood of our players, they were smiling, and I heard remarks that everything in Vienna would turn out fine.
This should get them used to controversial reffing and keeping their heads cool about it, no?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Road To Olympus
There are other drills which produce an interesting and psychological effect. A player who finds himself in an unusual situation in a game may at first feel lost. In this case, it is important to put him at ease, to give him practical advice, to support him. As he repeats the drill, the player acquires confidence and becomes better and better.

For instance, I have three forwards, each with a puck, coming down the ice on a lone defenseman. They fire at the goal on the go. At first, the defenseman may feel quite lost, his attention is scattered, he finds it difficult in switching from one player to another, the unexpected collisions are more than irritating, to say the least. But, as he gradually acquires experience in players in such conditions, he begins to search for the best ways to act in this complicated situation. He learns how to make the correct decision in a split second, displays ingenuity and courage, and counters force by force. Such a complicated drill compels a puckster to display all the best features of his character, in fact, all he has. And after such a drill, when the coach gives this defenseman the task of stopping a lone forward, it seems surprisingly easy to him, and it becomes quite evident to him just what he has been able to learn. But the success of any training period depends on the initiative of the players themselves. That is why any creative endeavor, any new idea of a player put forth at a training session is eagerly encouraged by the coaches.
Another interesting drill, and yet more evidence that Tarasov also knew how to motivate players in the first passage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Road To Olympus
Hockey is a game not only of courage and speed, but of minds. A man can win only if he can make a flash decision at a crucial moment, only if he can orientate himself like a chess player in the most complicated ever-changing situations, only if he can choose the correct way out of all the possible combinations every second of the game, only if he can foresee the development of events on the rink.
Would a coach that didn't adapt to situations talk about ever-changing situations?? A flash decision at a crucial moment??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Road To Olympus
I hope the reader realizes that we have no intention of permitting seven world victories in a row to make us overconfident. We know it is necessary to learn and to perfect the game constantly... what the opponent finds too difficult to cope with today will be mastered by all leading hockey powers tomorrow.
Does this sound like a coach who doesn't see the necessity in adapting to a game's situations??

As far as this continued insanity about him losing the locker room and not using the maximum capabilities of his players:

Quote:
Tarasov’s training methods are regarded by many as ruthless. A tireless worker and a maximalist by nature, he made his players exert themselves to full capacity, always setting them for victory. Having won the reputation of a ‘tough coach’, Anatoly Tarasov, nevertheless, was able to mould unique personalities and make star players. During his career he coached dozens of world-class masters, many of whom became world and Olympic champions. One of them, the legendary Valery Kharlamov, recalled: “It was very interesting to play for Tarasov. It was very hard. You always felt stiff with him. But it was worth it.” “I love my guys very much,” Anatoly Tarasov said. “That’s why I demand so much from them, as no one else would do.” The great coach was convinced that a hockey player had to be a versatile athlete, so his off-ice training program included long-distance running, soccer, swimming, and weight-lifting. He had the same requirements for both the beginners and experienced players – tough discipline and total dedication to hockey and to the team he was in charge of.
Quote:
Tretiak:

One day, Tarasov said to the coach of our junior team, "Let this boy come to practice with the seniors." and he pointed at me. I was stunned!... I tried hard at every practice. During the games I tried to stop every shot, even the impossible. "OK, try harder", Tarasov would say, patting me on the shoulder approvingly... often, there was criticism mixed with praise. He was probably afraid that I would become overconfident. "Don't listen to compliments," he reminded me. "When people praise you, they rob you! And if I criticize you, it likely means that I need you."... a new life began for me. Tarasov established a task for himself: to make Tretiak the best goalkeeper in the world.
Unconventional mind games? Sure. But they worked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Road To Olympus
The contact between a coach and a player is based on sincerity, in the realization of what the player is to gain from this particular training period and what is the ultimate goal. Undoubtedly, the contact will be closer if the athlete truly believes that each training session with the coach gives him maximum payoff. If a player has a clear-cut understanding of the kind of player the coach wants to make of him and if he believes that he can be that kind of a player and finally, if both the coach and the player knew how to go about reaching this goal, you can consider the job half-done. The rest depends on the athlete's industriousness, on the coach's persistence and ingenuity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Road To Olympus
A coach who is concerned with the future of a hockey player must take everything into consideration: The future of hockey itself, the possibilities of the sportsman, his temper and pure hockey qualities; what he can develop easily, what is almost an insurmountable barrier for him. The coach must remember what role his pupil is best suited for on the team. Taking such an approach to sports, to hockey, to each athlete, with such an understanding of an "ideal", the coach in his imagination gets an absolutely different, but sufficiently real ideal which even becomes attractive for the young hockey player himself. In this case, the athlete can feel the coach's concern for him. He understands the coach, and his faith in his creative endeavors. Involuntarily, the player begins to believe in himself. Such a player goes through his paces at training with inspiration, he takes a creative approach. That is why a coach who has an ideal which he aims at in cultivating his brood, must not only rectify his shortcomings, but first of all must devote a great deal of effort and ingenuity to develop those qualities and skills of a player that are most malleable in view of the peculiarities of his body, tendency, and character.

For instance, supposing a player has plenty of speed and is maneuverable in attacking, but obviously has no yen for bodychecking in defense. I would try to help this man to overcome his shortcomings, but I would devote my main efforts to developing his speed even more. Another example: Say, for instance, a player is a whiz at stickhandling past opponents with all kinds of fakes and spurts, he has a god hard shot at the goal, but his passing is obviously below par at game time. It would be wrong to try and cultivate in this player more eagerness to go in for teamwork by getting him to cut down on his fancy stickhandling. I believe that a player's drawbacks should be ironed out at the same time as the development of his most prominent playing skills. Another vital point in good coaching is to have firm contact between player and coach. This, of course, is obvious. I have just said how important it was for a coach to know the peculiarities in a player's character and his game, that the coach must always keep in mind the interests of an individual athlete, a line, the whole team. Only in this way will the players have faith in their mentor. Naturally the coach must know more about the theory of hockey than the most experienced or gifted man on his team, otherwise, he will simply not be able to do anything with the team.
Clearly he knew how to maximize a player's natural abilities, and there is yet even more evidence that he knew how to motivate players.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Road To Olympus Foreword
A group of teens was trying out for the Soviet Army team for the first time, and got manhandled by the bigger and stronger players:

"They had gathered together during the rest period and were muttering about the manhandling they had received. Tarasov gave them a pep talk.

"You got angry with it. These men are heavier than you, it is true. But endure when you are beaten. In this case, your weapon should be passing. That would equalize you. You, Viktor, you slowed when near the goal. Drive faster then, don't be afraid of collision. It's good you are fighting these wolfhounds as equals." When he left the group, he had done much to restore their spirits."
More evidence that he knew how to motivate players, AND knew how to get players to use the correct tactics to overcome adversity!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Road To Olympus
Besides criticism, certain pedagogical forms of punishment are useful when a player fails to carry out an order. For instance, a coach asks a player to display maximum ingenuity in executing a game drill. But after several remarks from the coach, he still resorts to primitive solutions, does not hustle, and skates without enthusiasm, just to not stand still. In such cases, I exclude him from the drill for a certain period of time and give him 20-30 laps around the rink at top speed. It is good if such punishment is meted out not by the coach, but by the captain. A player who is temporarily not with his comrades feels hurt, but he realizes he is to blame. This usually makes him take a more serious attitude towards training and develop industriousness. there are times when a player needs special support and backing from the coach. He may get into a rut, even though he has spent a great deal of time to get a drill done properly; or, perhaps, a drill in which the player has to skate at top speed or take a heavy body check saps up all his energy requires him to take risks and concentrate all his willpower - in both cases the coach must be close by, ready to give the players his advice. A few words to cheer him up and a pat of the back. Sometimes, nothing seems to click for a player, the going gets tough and he gets all worked up with himself. In this case, the coach must give him a few tips, perhaps, alter the drill somewhat, to give the lad confidence in himself. I try to be as active as possible at training sessions with the club. I am firmly convinced that a hockey coach must be a workhorse. A coach who does not show much, who moves very little, who does not get tired himself at the training period, who does not mix with the players every second, but just issues orders will not attain very much.
More example of motivation tactics. And clearly he was hard on the lazy guys, but the guys that were trying very hard but were having a hard time with the drills, he was there to support them!

And finally, here is some direct examples of him adapting to adversity:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Road To Olympus, referring to 1962 game against Hamilton junior Red Wings + 9 pros
Right from the beginning, the Canadians started playing a rough game. We got the impression that they had picked their victims ahead of time. They openly rapped our players in the face with their stick and picked fights whenever they could. Hockey according to the rules was out of the question. But the strangest thing was, the referees had apparently forgotten what they were on the ice for. They seemed to be enjoying the whole thing. And the fans did not boo. They were accustomed to such hockey... we told the boys in the locker room: every player must think how he is going to act on the ice to "cool off" the hot-headed opponent. We said we would not forgive any one of them for being cautious or hesitant. We told them to play hard, with resolute decision, to be real fighters, to play just as hard as the rules would permit.

Then it began! No longer was it a game of skill, technique, or tactics, nor even power. It was, in fact, a clash of characters, a grueling test of willpower, a real battle on the ice ensued, where our Soviet players also started interpreting the rules quite freely. Our opponents were confused. They were taken aback by what was happening. They did not even suspect that the Soviets knew how to dish it out. They did not know that our young players were strong, bold, and proud, that the Russian character is carefree, that the Russians can fight just as well as anyone else. After the first shift, one Canadian had to leave the ice for good. A few minutes later, another went limping off. That had powerful psychological impact.

They couldn't take it. They had become accustomed to getting away with murder against us. Here was saw these strong, healthy lads who only a few minutes ago were bullying as much as they could, coming up to the referees and complaining. The referees, as always, sided with the Canadians and started penalizing our boys. But we decided to let them play this way to the end. Even a man short, we played hard, "cooling off" the Red Wingers who were by now seeing red.

The head of the Canadians came to our locker room to propose that we play a clean game. He explained that they had an important league game in a few days and was worried that if continued in the same fashion, it could cost them plenty of manpower. We too wanted to play a good clean game of hockey. but we warned that we were not going to let our prestige suffer, that any signs of rough play would be countered by the hardest hitting brand of hockey ever. The Canadians had seen that we had our share of guts, strength, and courage.

That day, we learned the key to taming a rough opponent. We repaid him in kind, but without picking a fight, by playing hard hockey within the limits of the rules, by controlling ourselves, and playing on the verge of being penalized. And rules, incidentally, have clauses giving plenty of leeway to bring a rough opponent to his senses if he wants to test us.

Perhaps we should have pleaded with them to play clean hockey? No. they did not want to meet us halfway that night. They were certain we were afraid of them. And since no agreement about clean hockey could be reached, we had to force the opponent to respect us. We were able to take such a chance because we were sure of the chivalry of our players. We knew that they would not lose control of themselves; they would not become hardcore bullies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Road To Olympus
In the game between the juniors of the Central Army Club and the winners of the Allan Cup we decided to conduct an experiment: we decided to use the Canadians' own, once formidable weapon, rough and hard-hitting hockey. It turned out that this put them off altogether. The only way they could counter our bodychecks was by resorting to slashing, fist fights, and simply outrageous behaviour. They even started threatening the referees. Before the 3rd period, their coach suggested that we try and get some order on the ice. I replied that the 'eager beavers' were our hosts and they should be the ones to decide how we were to play. The Canadians decided to finish the game according to amateur rules. I am not sure they came to this decision because they wanted to be nice and gentlemanly. I believe they understood that we were just as good as they were when it came to handing out good, stiff, tooth-jarring bodychecks.
I hope this settles things in everyones' minds. I've displayed far more than enough evidence I feel to destroy all these simplistic beliefs about Tarasov and his "system". There is a lot more to him for anyone who wishes to educate themselves on him:

http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2...&postcount=712

Please read this before you buy into any more of this.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 09:46 AM
  #33
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Ryan Getzlaf View Post
Also, something to note about the PCHA. I'm not sure how many people realize this, or care to admit it, but the total amount of players in that league was 23. Minus the two reserves and three goaltenders, and that's 18 total skaters for the entire league. So, really, if you finished 10th in league scoring, you were actually quite below average. I find that very interesting.
I think we've had this discussion a billion times already in other threads. Also, seventieslord's consistency studies really do a good job of taking this into account. Check them out if you're interested, but I have a feeling you won't.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 09:48 AM
  #34
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Ryan Getzlaf View Post
Well, I'd rather not make this a political debate, but I think it's safe to assume the majority were. The Soviet Union was obviously a communist state, and there seemed to be little to no uprising of any kind. Considering all the propoganda and whatnot being fed to them, I'd say the majority of Russians at the time were probably communist. We obviously have no way of knowing unless we asked them, but the ratio of communists on those Soviet Union team is probably the same as advocates for democracy on the Canadian teams. And I do know Tretiak was one for sure. Haven't found anything on the others.

And that proves that they didn't buy into communism? Hardly. Maybe that they didn't buy into the ideal of true communism, but the Soviet Union didn't either. With the soviet union, there was always the uncomprimising, unquestionable leader. Kind of like Tarasov.

As for his system, I guess it's not his system that's so rigid, but his methods. He worked his players to the bone and was a very, very demanding coach. No different than some NHL coaches, one might say, but a lot of Soviet players really took a dive once they hit 30 or so. This didn't happen under guys like Bowman. Not saying it's necessarily a bad quality for an ATD coach, but it does show that his system was quite demanding.
Oh, and this is just gold:

How about all those players that caused a stir in Russia because they wanted to play in the NHL during Tikhonov's time?

Some more famous examples are Fetisov and Makarov. There are others as well. In the world of Russian hockey, there definitely WERE uprisings.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 09:53 AM
  #35
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reds4Life View Post
Yeah, but those were Russian players. Different culture than your North American players. I really doubt the likes of Coffey, Staal, Ratelle etc would put up with his methods. Just my opinion anyways.
Just speaking about Ratelle specifically, this was the man that "happily" accepted a checking role in the Summit Series. I really doubt he'll have any problems with adapting to Tarasov. Bowman and Blake were very harsh and critical as well, probably moreso than Tarasov as far as the negativity is concerned. Tarasov wasn't a negative, critical guy. What he didn't like was lazy players. We don't have a single one of those on our team. His methods prepared his boys to win, and what does a hockey player want to do more than anything else? That's right, win.

I also showed that he wouldn't force a player to do something he wasn't comfortable with. He won't make Paul Coffey do the job of an elite defensive defender. No, he's going to temper the things that he's really good at, while doing his best to minimize his shortcomings. It's the same with every other player on the team. As long as the guys are giving the effort and don't become complacent or overconfident, Tarasov won't have issues with these players.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 09:57 AM
  #36
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,476
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jareklajkosz View Post
My God.

You think Tarasov won't adjust when the going gets tough? Oh my God, now I am CERTAIN you didn't read the bio! He adjusted alright, he adjusted so much so that his teams came out and made their opponents shake in their skates. Observe:

The reason he didn't "need" to adjust is because his players were so well prepared that the games seemed easy compared to the training:



Now, I'm sure in modern day hockey, players are far more in shape than they were back then, no? So wouldn't that mean that his training methods wouldn't be as harsh on these guys as the Soviets? Here are some examples:



Not a bad idea, huh? Certainly this would translate well to a game, and further establish the idea of ever-changing situations. Not only that, but if you read the first passage, Tarasov also seemed to get his players to enjoy these drills as well!



Skating would be a lot easier after that, no?



This should get them used to controversial reffing and keeping their heads cool about it, no?



Another interesting drill, and yet more evidence that Tarasov also knew how to motivate players in the first passage.



Would a coach that didn't adapt to situations talk about ever-changing situations?? A flash decision at a crucial moment??



Does this sound like a coach who doesn't see the necessity in adapting to a game's situations??

As far as this continued insanity about him losing the locker room and not using the maximum capabilities of his players:





Unconventional mind games? Sure. But they worked.





Clearly he knew how to maximize a player's natural abilities, and there is yet even more evidence that he knew how to motivate players.



More evidence that he knew how to motivate players, AND knew how to get players to use the correct tactics to overcome adversity!



More example of motivation tactics. And clearly he was hard on the lazy guys, but the guys that were trying very hard but were having a hard time with the drills, he was there to support them!

And finally, here is some direct examples of him adapting to adversity:





I hope this settles things in everyones' minds. I've displayed far more than enough evidence I feel to destroy all these simplistic beliefs about Tarasov and his "system". There is a lot more to him for anyone who wishes to educate themselves on him:

http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2...&postcount=712

Please read this before you buy into any more of this.
The majority of those quotes and his own bio is from his autobiography. You're not going to really hear about the bad there. And of those examples of overcoming adversity, they don't answer my questions. Both talk about how the Soviets became physical to combat the Canadians' physical play. That's fine and all, but I wasn't referring to physical play. But it states nothing about being burnt by his own aggressiveness. He simply got more aggressive. But what if my team burns his aggressive play? Judging by this, Regina will get more aggressive, which works right into our game plan. Play it conservative and burn Regina when we can. Like stated by the both of you, Tarasov doesn't believe in defensive play. So if we're making Regina pay, there's little to suggest he'll revamp his game plan and be better defensively. Works for me.

Also, look who those adjustments were made against, not pros by any stretch. While obviously Regina is a more talented team than Hitchcock has ever faced, relatively it's not. But even relatively this is a much more talented team than Tarasov has ever faced. I'm curious to see how well he can do when he doesn't have a major advantage.

Gibsons Finest is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 09:58 AM
  #37
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Oh, and one more very fun tidbit about Tarasov:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Konstantin Loktev
I cannot say we played under a dictatorship under Tarasov. He had a very hard nature but was an outstanding coach. He was always giving the players new exercises to improve their skills. The difference is that ******** doesn't keep the boys interested, as Tarasov did. ******** only wants to order them to work harder.
Loktev, the guy Tarasov kicked off the team for smoking, turns around and says this. The asterisked out part is Tikhonov, I believe, who really WAS a dictator.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 10:03 AM
  #38
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Ryan Getzlaf View Post
The majority of those quotes and his own bio is from his autobiography. You're not going to really hear about the bad there. And of those examples of overcoming adversity, they don't answer my questions. Both talk about how the Soviets became physical to combat the Canadians' physical play. That's fine and all, but I wasn't referring to physical play. But it states nothing about being burnt by his own aggressiveness. He simply got more aggressive. But what if my team burns his aggressive play? Judging by this, Regina will get more aggressive, which works right into our game plan. Play it conservative and burn Regina when we can. Like stated by the both of you, Tarasov doesn't believe in defensive play. So if we're making Regina pay, there's little to suggest he'll revamp his game plan and be better defensively. Works for me.

Also, look who those adjustments were made against, not pros by any stretch. While obviously Regina is a more talented team than Hitchcock has ever faced, relatively it's not. But even relatively this is a much more talented team than Tarasov has ever faced. I'm curious to see how well he can do when he doesn't have a major advantage.
What the hell, I never said Tarasov doesn't believe in defensive play. He DOES believe in it! Why do you think he liked a player like Konstantiv Loktev, who was one guy he could count on to play in every zone of the ice???

It is believed by many that if the 1972 Summit Series was coached by Tarasov, that the Canadians would have stood no chance. Tarasov desperately wanted to play against North American professionals with his team, but the North Americans never wanted to do so. There was an instance of this with Jack Adams in Ultimate Hockey. I believe they didn't want to allow Adams to do this because they were afraid of getting smoked.

Those examples of overcoming adversity weren't mean to be taken literally as just about physical play. It was meant to be as examples that he WAS willing to change his game plan to accomodate ever changing situations. His team was getting beaten around, so he turned around and had his players do the same right back. As far as skill is concerned, I think his own track record proves that in a game of skill, Tarasov's teams will beat anyone. He was a master of getting everything he could out of his players. This puts Regina at a huge advantage here, because our players will be far more prepared to take on anything Hitchcock's team has to offer. ESPECIALLY if you plan to just sit back and wait for chances - you'll get burned badly by speed and precision passing.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 10:04 AM
  #39
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,476
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jareklajkosz View Post
Oh, and this is just gold:

How about all those players that caused a stir in Russia because they wanted to play in the NHL during Tikhonov's time?

Some more famous examples are Fetisov and Makarov. There are others as well. In the world of Russian hockey, there definitely WERE uprisings.
Yes, and that all started when the Soviet Union was being brought down. Tarasov's hey-day was the sixties. Two completely different eras, really.

Gibsons Finest is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 10:08 AM
  #40
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Ryan Getzlaf View Post
Yes, and that all started when the Soviet Union was being brought down. Tarasov's hey-day was the sixties. Two completely different eras, really.
Even with that taken into account, he was still far above and beyond a "Communist" coach. You want a Communist coach, go read up on Tikhonov. That guy sent a team of expressionless, emotionless shells out on the ice. Tarasov's guys, as Loktev said, were always interested in the exercizes, and he always knew how to motivate a player to get interested in the exercizes, or helping a player get back on his feet and finding his game if he seemed lost out there.

As far as the autobiography part, Tarasov even stated within it that he may not have been right. He was not afraid to be proven wrong, and he often had very good discussions with North American coaches that he came across about tactics and whatnot.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 10:11 AM
  #41
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Oh, and one more thing: BRG, why don't you show a breakdown of your team's offensive stats like I did? Or are you afraid of doing that because it'll show your team isn't that much better offensively?

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 10:15 AM
  #42
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
And while we're at it, here is some stuff to prove that Tarasov's methods worked for North American teams, courtesy of Fred Shero:

IMPACT ON FRED SHERO AND OTHER NORTH AMERICAN COACHES

Tarasov’s training techniques and coaching style were copied by just one man in North America initially – Fred Shero, who won two cups with Philadelphia. He also had an influence on Scotty Bowman and Herb Brooks. Here’s how it went:


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Red Machine
Tarasov took a Soviet junior team to Minnesota in 1960 for a week's training. Shero watched, disbelievingly. They were so good they could have won the Memorial Cup back then, he thought.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Red Machine
When Tarasov had come to Minnesota with the Soviet junior team to hold workouts in 1960, Herb Brooks had gone along with Shero to the arena to take notes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Red Machine
His deep-thinking, creative approach to the game found a would-be imitator in Fred Shero. Shero studied Tarasov and fell into his own seeming trances, once sending out his players at practice to skate for as long as possible on one leg. With help from gangland warfare, as well as Tarasovian techniques("I must have read Tarasov's book 100 times") Shero's Flyers captured two Stanley Cups.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotty Bowman: A Life In Hockey
Shero, the mastermind of the Broad Street Bullies of Philadelphia, traveled all the way to Russia to take a coaching clinic run by Anatoly Tarasov.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shero: The Man Behind the System
In Russia, the training of an athlete has become a science. While visiting that country with a study group from the University of Loyola in June 1974, I had the opportunity to visit many training facilities... all these kids in these facilities start out with gymnastic drills, and they seem to be in better condition than the Canadian and American boys of the same age. Interestingly enough, the Russian coaches will not allow these youngsters to get on the ice until they are 12 or 13 years old... The object of the Russian training method seems to be a concentrated effort to give the youngster an all-round training, to give the child a feel for all sports. Such a system helps to develop the entire body and condition the mind... Like the Russians, we are constantly exercising. During the season, the boys perform certain drills which strengthen the body. We play tennis during our off days or we might even have swimming contests... I agree that ever hockey player should be a master at all sports, because hockey combines all sports.

Shero knew the truth. He knew Tarasov was miles ahead of all other coaches, and he longed to be miles ahead too:


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Red Machine[B
]"Coaches in our country are not considered masters of anything"[/b], Shero told the Russians. "In fact, they're considered dummies in a lot of cases." Shero gave a lengthy presentation, dispensing whatever knowledge he had, and lapped up what the Russians had to say. Other Canadians felt they weren't getting enough out of the symposium and wanted to go home, leaving Shero to conclude the lectures were too deep for them. The irony was that the Philadelphia coach, the same man who was being harpooned at home as the father of goon hockey, a type of hockey the soviets despised, was the star of the show.

At a similar seminar the following year, Mike Smith, the future GM of the Winnipeg Jets, sat embarrassed watching the vacuous presentations of the Western participants. They didn't know anything that could help the Russians, he said, because they had never studied the game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shero: The Man Behind the System
In the last 30 years, since the beginning of the red line, we have done nothing in center ice. Every other team does the same thing: if they get the puck over to the center; if the wings are covered, they shoot it in. The Russians have advanced beyond that stage already. Instead of shooting the puck in, they will create openings. I picked up this technique from the Russians, and ours is the only team in the NHL that has been using this method of play... The Russians are creating openings even in their own zone. They will weave and cut to get away from the wings and create openings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shero: The Man Behind the System
the Russians believe in five-man units and all working together. Every man knows exactly what the other man is goig to do in every situation. When I played defense and our center had the puck, I had no idea what he was going to do. In a typical game, the wings may have had some idea of what the center was going to do, but generally, we never worked as a five-man unit.

For instance, the left winger would have the puck deep in the corner, and I could stand free all night and never get the puck. He was going to do what he wanted, and nobody knew what he was going to , not even the coach. But the Russians don't play that way and neither do the Flyers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shero: The Man Behind the System
While the Russians have made a science of the game, we continue to stumble along blindly with primitive ideas that should have been discarded a long time ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shero: The Man Behind the System
We have a lot to learn from the European and the Russian systems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotty Bowman
I remember the time when Tarasov watched my workouts with the Montreal Canadiens. And he approved of them. I was extremely pleased to hear that.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 10:15 AM
  #43
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,476
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jareklajkosz View Post
I think we've had this discussion a billion times already in other threads. Also, seventieslord's consistency studies really do a good job of taking this into account. Check them out if you're interested, but I have a feeling you won't.
I've seen them, but they still answer nothing. As mentioned, a top-10 finish was still below average for the league, which is putting it nicely, as it assumes that both points were equal to forwards in terms of goalscoring. Your PCHA boys are used to playing on the ice at all times in a three-team league. I just don't think top-10 finishes and the like in that scenario translate well to the ATD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jareklajkosz View Post
What the hell, I never said Tarasov doesn't believe in defensive play. He DOES believe in it! Why do you think he liked a player like Konstantiv Loktev, who was one guy he could count on to play in every zone of the ice???

It is believed by many that if the 1972 Summit Series was coached by Tarasov, that the Canadians would have stood no chance. Tarasov desperately wanted to play against North American professionals with his team, but the North Americans never wanted to do so. There was an instance of this with Jack Adams in Ultimate Hockey. I believe they didn't want to allow Adams to do this because they were afraid of getting smoked.

Those examples of overcoming adversity weren't mean to be taken literally as just about physical play. It was meant to be as examples that he WAS willing to change his game plan to accomodate ever changing situations. His team was getting beaten around, so he turned around and had his players do the same right back. As far as skill is concerned, I think his own track record proves that in a game of skill, Tarasov's teams will beat anyone. He was a master of getting everything he could out of his players. This puts Regina at a huge advantage here, because our players will be far more prepared to take on anything Hitchcock's team has to offer. ESPECIALLY if you plan to just sit back and wait for chances - you'll get burned badly by speed and precision passing.
I believe the direct quote from Tarasov was something alone the lines of believing that if you play a conservative style, you're assuming you will lose. I'm not saying Tarasov hates defensive play, no coach would, but that he would not revamp his style to be more conservative if needed. There's also no evidence to suggest Tarasov was a strong defensive mind. Yeah, he liked a player because he could play in all ends, big deal. Doesn't mean he is a good defensive coach.

And will we get burned? The trap revolutionized the game. Even if you think it was a bad thing, which is was for the NHL's popularity, you can't deny that. Rule changes were made to try and stop it and despite those, it's still effective given the right personnel. Hell, conservative play is a fine game-plan in just about every sport there is. Defense wins championships, and my team's main concern is on the defensive side. Given your teams' penchant for offensive play and aggressiveness, I think we can really capitalize here.

Gibsons Finest is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 10:20 AM
  #44
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Ryan Getzlaf View Post
I've seen them, but they still answer nothing. As mentioned, a top-10 finish was still below average for the league, which is putting it nicely, as it assumes that both points were equal to forwards in terms of goalscoring. Your PCHA boys are used to playing on the ice at all times in a three-team league. I just don't think top-10 finishes and the like in that scenario translate well to the ATD.



I believe the direct quote from Tarasov was something alone the lines of believing that if you play a conservative style, you're assuming you will lose. I'm not saying Tarasov hates defensive play, no coach would, but that he would not revamp his style to be more conservative if needed. There's also no evidence to suggest Tarasov was a strong defensive mind. Yeah, he liked a player because he could play in all ends, big deal. Doesn't mean he is a good defensive coach.

And will we get burned? The trap revolutionized the game. Even if you think it was a bad thing, which is was for the NHL's popularity, you can't deny that. Rule changes were made to try and stop it and despite those, it's still effective given the right personnel. Hell, conservative play is a fine game-plan in just about every sport there is. Defense wins championships, and my team's main concern is on the defensive side. Given your teams' penchant for offensive play and aggressiveness, I think we can really capitalize here.
Tarasov didn't believe in falling back into a defensive shell - as in, zero offense and just protecting a lead. He believed in hard forechecking and a swift transition from defense to offense whether it's the 40 minute mark of a 1-1 game or the dying minutes of a 7-1 game. He didn't agree with complacency, and the quotes I just posted relating to Fred Shero proved that this system worked. The Flyers were the only team to use Tarasov's system, and no one could handle it, as they won two cups with it. Scotty Bowman also seemed to have used a similar system, as Tarasov approved of his methods as well. The trap works when the other team isn't skilled or prepared enough to get by it with speed and passing. Our team definitely does not fall into that category.

Also, if you choose to just be conservative with your team, then this peppering of Jacques Plante that you're talking about won't happen either, because we're responsible enough defensively and skilled enough offensively that you'll be waiting for this chance for a long time.

Also, when is the last time the trap won a Stanley Cup?

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 10:24 AM
  #45
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,476
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jareklajkosz View Post
Even with that taken into account, he was still far above and beyond a "Communist" coach. You want a Communist coach, go read up on Tikhonov. That guy sent a team of expressionless, emotionless shells out on the ice. Tarasov's guys, as Loktev said, were always interested in the exercizes, and he always knew how to motivate a player to get interested in the exercizes, or helping a player get back on his feet and finding his game if he seemed lost out there.

As far as the autobiography part, Tarasov even stated within it that he may not have been right. He was not afraid to be proven wrong, and he often had very good discussions with North American coaches that he came across about tactics and whatnot.
I'm not saying Tikhonov isn't a Communist coach, or even more of one. Doesn't mean Tarasov isn't one, either. Tarasov's system is all about no individualism and overall team play. Not a bad system if everyone buys into it, but I have my doubts that a guy like Paul Coffey will accept that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jareklajkosz View Post
Oh, and one more thing: BRG, why don't you show a breakdown of your team's offensive stats like I did? Or are you afraid of doing that because it'll show your team isn't that much better offensively?
I choose not to because it would go nowhere. I base the majority of my judgements on acclaim whereas you two use top-whatever finishes. I've gotten into many similar arguments with seventies about the valuation of stats vs. acclaim, and I don't think it will be constructive to do the same.



Also, as for Shero, that's one coach, who also won a lot of games not due to his imitation of Tarasov's system but rather by simply being tougher than any team we'll ever see. And he didn't limit individual play, either, which is one of my strongest criticisms of Tarasov. Also, a key cog on Shero's cup-winning teams was Rick MacLeish, a player I have no doubt Tarasov would've hated. Shero did like him quite a bit, though. Shero was a fan of Tarasov, ok. The two were very different in a lot of ways, though.

Gibsons Finest is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 10:33 AM
  #46
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reds4Life View Post
Yeah, but those were Russian players. Different culture than your North American players. I really doubt the likes of Coffey, Staal, Ratelle etc would put up with his methods. Just my opinion anyways.
So you have to be Russian for Tarasov to "work" as a coach? What a joke.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Ryan Getzlaf View Post
I wholeheartedly agree with that. Russian players bought into Tarasov's system, but as GBC alluded to, it is a very communist system, no one player stands out. Of course Communists will buy into such a system, but how would NA players, who are used to being a standout on some nights and have played that way all their lives, adapt to a system like that? And it will be these guys adapting, as Tarasov won't be adapting to anything. I also see this system hurting Regina big time in the sense that if they're in tough, and need someone to put the team on his back and lead them out of a hole, it can't really happen. The system forbids it. And while Tarasov might like a player like Paul Coffey in terms of what he brings, his system takes away a lot of Coffey's dynamic ability, and reduces him to being simply a talented blueliner within the system. That could be huge, as this system really could take probably Regina's best weapon.

Also, I think Tarasov and Plante could be a combination that could really hurt this team. Plante had asthma, and Tarasov ran his goalies ragged. Three practices a day as hard as you can go? Plante won't put up with that, nor should he in his condition, and Tarasov will make no exceptions. This could be interesting, as Tarasov's system and his ways could greatly upset Regina's two best players. Kind of hard to win when that happens.
- The team is built on players who are used to flying under the radar.

- Tarasov is a big fan of talented players, so long as they work within a team context. All of our guys do.

- Tarasov and Coffey will get along famously.

Quote:
It is wrong to train players only from the point of view of defence. A defenseman, even if he is positional, must always keep in mind his constructive functions. A defenceman is on the ice not only for retrieving the puck or to throw it out of his zone, but to organize a counter-attack... The danger of a defenseman should not be simply narrowed down to powerful slap shots from the blueline. I see no reason why a high class, technical defenseman should not come up much closer to the enemy's goal.
Quote:
A defenseman, after retrieving the puck, must immediately on the second step, not later, whip a pass to a teammate who has already picked up speed. He must make use of these few seconds when the attacking enemy has still not got the time to return and put up its defense barriers. Only then will it be possible to speak of our advance forward as a counterattack, when leaving our own zone we are already a real threat to the enemy goal, and this counterattack will be a stern warning to the enemy to be more than careful when he attacks us.
- Tarasov built Tretiak from the ground up. It was necessary to get him up to speed with the North American goalies, something he knew The Soviets had lacked for years. Plante doesn't need to be built from the ground up now. He's already Jacques Plante. You don't think Tarasov would account for Plante's "weakness"? You're calling him an idiot, and he's clearly not. How's the grasping at straws coming along?

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 10:35 AM
  #47
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,476
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jareklajkosz View Post
Tarasov didn't believe in falling back into a defensive shell - as in, zero offense and just protecting a lead. He believed in hard forechecking and a swift transition from defense to offense whether it's the 40 minute mark of a 1-1 game or the dying minutes of a 7-1 game. He didn't agree with complacency, and the quotes I just posted relating to Fred Shero proved that this system worked. The Flyers were the only team to use Tarasov's system, and no one could handle it, as they won two cups with it. Scotty Bowman also seemed to have used a similar system, as Tarasov approved of his methods as well. The trap works when the other team isn't skilled or prepared enough to get by it with speed and passing. Our team definitely does not fall into that category.

Also, if you choose to just be conservative with your team, then this peppering of Jacques Plante that you're talking about won't happen either, because we're responsible enough defensively and skilled enough offensively that you'll be waiting for this chance for a long time.

Also, when is the last time the trap won a Stanley Cup?
Bowman system was not like Tarasov's at all, as Bowman preached defensive play first and foremost. And Shero did not use Tarasov's system, he emulated some aspects of it, but they're very different systems.

As for the trap only working when the other team isn't skilled enough, that's a laugh. Over the years the trap has shut down many a skilled team. There's a reason it took the NHL by storm from 94-04, and it's not because there wasn't enough skill in the league to beat it. As for the trap winning the cup, that depends. I could probably say 2008, as Mike Babcock still uses a nice variant of it. The 0 offense trap is used by teams with no offensive talent to try and win games, and it's had some success. But Hitchcock doesn't play like that. His teams can and will score, just as mine can and will. It's not as if we're going to be super conservative and never take our chances. We are, though, going to worry about defense first, and that's been quite a recipe for success in any type of sport setting.

Gibsons Finest is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 10:38 AM
  #48
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Ryan Getzlaf View Post
I'm not saying Tikhonov isn't a Communist coach, or even more of one. Doesn't mean Tarasov isn't one, either. Tarasov's system is all about no individualism and overall team play. Not a bad system if everyone buys into it, but I have my doubts that a guy like Paul Coffey will accept that.



I choose not to because it would go nowhere. I base the majority of my judgements on acclaim whereas you two use top-whatever finishes. I've gotten into many similar arguments with seventies about the valuation of stats vs. acclaim, and I don't think it will be constructive to do the same.



Also, as for Shero, that's one coach, who also won a lot of games not due to his imitation of Tarasov's system but rather by simply being tougher than any team we'll ever see. And he didn't limit individual play, either, which is one of my strongest criticisms of Tarasov. Also, a key cog on Shero's cup-winning teams was Rick MacLeish, a player I have no doubt Tarasov would've hated. Shero did like him quite a bit, though. Shero was a fan of Tarasov, ok. The two were very different in a lot of ways, though.
Konstantiv Loktev himself felt that Tarasov didn't coach as a dictator. Valeri Kharlamov, a guy known for flashy stickhandling and whatnot, seemed to like Tarasov, and the feeling being mutual. What Tarasov didn't like with respect to individuality is a guy going on a solo rush trying to beat the entire other team to score a goal for his own glory. He had no problems with a guy displaying enormous offensive talent in such a way that it helped the TEAM. If Paul Coffey is going on a rush, Tarasov knows this guy is his fastest player and a very good playmaker, he knows Coffey will be going up ice along with the rest of the team and he will distribute the puck as needed. What he won't like is a guy leaving his own zone to go on offense before the team gets the puck back. What he won't like is Paul Coffey leaving the zone on his own and leaving his players behind him, which won't happen. He has no problems with players deking guys out to score a goal. He even said this himself! If you read the quotes I posted, you will notice that Tarasov would have done nothing to restrict a guy from using incredible stickhandling skills to become a better passer or something. No, he'd temper those parts about a player that are his strengths while trying to minimize his weaknesses.

Quote:
Say, for instance, a player is a whiz at stickhandling past opponents with all kinds of fakes and spurts, he has a god hard shot at the goal, but his passing is obviously below par at game time. It would be wrong to try and cultivate in this player more eagerness to go in for teamwork by getting him to cut down on his fancy stickhandling. I believe that a player's drawbacks should be ironed out at the same time as the development of his most prominent playing skills.
Clearly what he doesn't like is a player playing for his own glory, NOT a player putting on an offensive clinic in an effort to help the team.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 10:41 AM
  #49
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Ryan Getzlaf View Post
I'm not saying Tikhonov isn't a Communist coach, or even more of one. Doesn't mean Tarasov isn't one, either. Tarasov's system is all about no individualism and overall team play. Not a bad system if everyone buys into it, but I have my doubts that a guy like Paul Coffey will accept that.



I choose not to because it would go nowhere. I base the majority of my judgements on acclaim whereas you two use top-whatever finishes. I've gotten into many similar arguments with seventies about the valuation of stats vs. acclaim, and I don't think it will be constructive to do the same.



Also, as for Shero, that's one coach, who also won a lot of games not due to his imitation of Tarasov's system but rather by simply being tougher than any team we'll ever see. And he didn't limit individual play, either, which is one of my strongest criticisms of Tarasov. Also, a key cog on Shero's cup-winning teams was Rick MacLeish, a player I have no doubt Tarasov would've hated. Shero did like him quite a bit, though. Shero was a fan of Tarasov, ok. The two were very different in a lot of ways, though.
So by not doing that, you're basically admitting that you don't want to show them because you know they're not that impressive. Ok, I like where that is going for sure.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 10:41 AM
  #50
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,476
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
So you have to be Russian for Tarasov to "work" as a coach? What a joke.



- The team is built on players who are used to flying under the radar.

- Tarasov is a big fan of talented players, so long as they work within a team context. All of our guys do.

- Tarasov and Coffey will get along famously.





- Tarasov built Tretiak from the ground up. It was necessary to get him up to speed with the North American goalies, something he knew The Soviets had lacked for years. Plante doesn't need to be built from the ground up now. He's already Jacques Plante. You don't think Tarasov would account for Plante's "weakness"? You're calling him an idiot, and he's clearly not. How's the grasping at straws coming along?
Actually, you've done nothing to show that Tarasov and Coffey will get along. You've shown that Tarasov will like his talent, as long as it works within his system. But will Coffey like Tarasov? I don't think so. And I don't think Coffey will like not being able to stand out at all.

As for Tarasov-Plante, what evidence is there that Tarasov will take it easy on him? Considering how hard and intense his practices were, and his philosphies, he'd never let Plante off the hook. You say he's "already Jacques Plante", but Tarasov doesn't care about that. Again, I definitely think Plante will not like playing for Tarasov, and there could be a major problem for Regina there.

Gibsons Finest is online now   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 02:26 AM.

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.