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.

Where do the great Soviets rank?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-30-2010, 02:12 AM
  #26
Starchild74
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 324
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
Well said.

Yep. People seem to forget that fact. In his first 5 years in the NHL, Makarov outscored everyone in his age bracket.
Really

Sergei Makarov
Year age goals assists points

1989-90 31 24-62-86
1990-91 32 30-49-79
1991-92 33 22-48-70
1992-93 34 18-39-57
1993-94 35 30-38-68
Total age 31-35 124-236-360

Mike Gartner

1989-90 30 45-41-86
1990-91 31 49-20-69
1991-92 32 40-41-81
1992-93 33 45-23-68
1993-94 34 34-30-64
Total age 30-34 213-155-368

Pretty close the same age bracket I would say and if you just add 3 years of Wayne Gretzky from the age of 31-33 from the seasons of 1992-94 316 points in just 200 games so in his age bracket he did not have the most points. Players his age playing a year or two after ended up with more points then him. Do not get me wrong he was good but not the best either when you just look at his NHL career

Starchild74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2010, 02:21 AM
  #27
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starchild74 View Post
Really

Sergei Makarov
Year age goals assists points

1989-90 31 24-62-86
1990-91 32 30-49-79
1991-92 33 22-48-70
1992-93 34 18-39-57
1993-94 35 30-38-68
Total age 31-35 124-236-360

Mike Gartner

1989-90 30 45-41-86
1990-91 31 49-20-69
1991-92 32 40-41-81
1992-93 33 45-23-68
1993-94 34 34-30-64
Total age 30-34 213-155-368

Pretty close the same age bracket I would say and if you just add 3 years of Wayne Gretzky from the age of 31-33 from the seasons of 1992-94 316 points in just 200 games so in his age bracket he did not have the most points. Players his age playing a year or two after ended up with more points then him. Do not get me wrong he was good but not the best either when you just look at his NHL career
From the 89-90 season till the 93-94 season, all players starting at age 31 or older

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

Even if you look at the entire History of Hockey for players scoring between the ages of 31-35, Makarov makes top 20 in the NHL all time.
http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2010, 02:24 AM
  #28
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starchild74 View Post
You are right when Fetisov joined the NHl he was 31 and had to adjust to a different league. I think the point that you might be missing is this. From the age of 31 people saw Fetisov play on a regular basis. He was not a top 10 defenceman in the league and was not the best Russian defenceman in the league. That title goes to Konstatinov. THe thing is that we all know Fetisov was one of the best defenceman for the Soviets no question but in his prime how many games did the average fan see of him. Now what we saw of him he was great but their are other players who played well in the Olympics or Canada Cup too but becasue it is a short tournament you can not say that for sure he is better then someone that you saw all the time. No offence to Fetisov but I rather from what I have seen have guys like Bourque, Potvin, Coffey before Fetisov easily because even though from the handful of games I saw in his prime he might be just as good as those the problem is that it is might be. Just never seen him play against top notch talent for a long period of time in his prime.
So because you never saw it, it didn't exist?

European hockey fans in the USSR (and I believe Finland and Sweden) got to watch the Soviet greats play on a fairly regular basis.

Canada's all that matters, right?
Quote:

Once again just a short window of a player does not show proper evaluation of a player. When a player is drafted in the NHL they just do not watch a few games and say that is our guy. They watch many games to properly evaluate them. For example Mike Liut is a good goalie. Not the greatest goalie ever but in the 80's he was very good. If you watch the final of the Canada Cup in '81 and just watched that game you might think he was a bum and never deserved to be in the NHL. That is why when you evaluate or compare players you have to take into account everything not just one game or a tournament. Fetisov is widely believed to be the best Soviet defenceman ever and I think that is true. Could he have played in the NHL? Of course but to say he would have played in the NHL at the level of a Brap Park or the level we saw in some tournaments is not known and will never be known. You can not deal in what if's or could have been. That is why it is hard to honestly say how great the Soviet players were
It is hard to say how great the Soviet players were, but the whole "they never played in the NHL" thing is a lazy copout. Including the exhibition games in the late 70s, the Soviets played a lot of games against North Americans and proved time and time again that there wasn't a huge gap if there was one at all.

Quote:
I like Fetisov but maybe the reason he played better in Detroit was because they were a good team adn it made it easier for him.
Fetisov played for the NJ Devils in 93-94 when the team was the 2nd best team in the entire league in the regular season and took the Rangers to OT in Game 7 of the ECF. He was traded away early in the 94-95 season. The Devils were a great team towards the end of Fetisov's tenure there. So no, it wasn't because Detroit was a better team.

Quote:
To be role player someone to add to the team not be the main guy. The reason Fetisov had problems adjusting to the NHL does not take away the skill or diminish what kind of player he was. It is just that when you compare Fetisov to Lidstrom lets say how can you honestly say Fetisov is better when LIdstrom played against the best players and Fetisov only did that in tournaments.
I rank Lidstrom over Fetisov, but not because Fetisov was (through no fault of his own) stuck behind the Iron Curtain during his prime.
Quote:
Sergei Makarov was never ever the best player in the NHL at any time no matter what criteria you may use. He was good but that is it when it comes to the NHL. Sorry but just taking his NHL years only he was never a top ten player in the NHL and in the playoffs except for '94 he never did anything really
He was the best player of his age group in the entire NHL!!!!

From my really long post (http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2...&postcount=170) about Makarov in the last Top 100 project:

V. Makarov DID prove himself in the NHL, despite numerous disadvantages.

Makarov joined the NHL past his prime at the age of 31. He was at a disadvantage, compared to other 31 year olds:

A. Soviet greats tended to peak early and flame out early, much like NHL dynasty players of certain era. This is assumed to be largely due to the military-style 11 months-per-year training they were forced to undergo, but for whatever reason, it happened.

B. After spending the majority of his playing years in the Soviet system, he had to adopt to a completely different style of play.

And yet, despite these disadvantages, Makarov was one of the very best players in the NHL of his age group.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
Makarov entered the NHL in 1990; over the next five years he outscored every player in his age group (ie counting all the years from players 30+) and that includes Gretzky, Messier, Bourque, Stastny, Gartner and Mullen. I realize that this is a bit of a selective stat, but it also shows that Makarov, even after a late transition to the NHL, was as dominant as any other similarly-aged scorer in the league at the time.
Here's the raw data:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pp/p...rder_by=points

After that, Makarov tailed off, but he was 36 by that time!

And HO pointed out earlier in this thread that Makarov was 6th in points per game among his age group for his entire career.
Quote:
I do not want to make it sound as though I am anti Soviet or Russian
Too late.
Quote:
but you tell me all the Soviets that have played better then the Canadian counterparts. I mean for example are you telling me that anyone on the KLM line was better then Lemieux or Gretzky.
Nobody is telling you that anyone on the KLM line was better than Lemieux or Gretzky. That would be silly and this is really a strawman argument on your part.

But Makarov compared to Kurri or Bossy? It's a fair comparison. Makarov was the 2nd best forward in the Canada Cups, after Gretzky (except for Lemieux in 87).

Quote:
That Fetisov was better then Coffey.
Honestly, Coffey was a great offensive player, but he had his warts. I don't see why it's so crazy to think that the USSR's best defenseman was better than a guy who was, at best, Canada's 2nd best after Bourque.
Quote:
Now I am not saying that in all the summit series and Canada Cups that no Soviet outplayed a canadian counterpart but to say they all did is a pure joke.
Who the hell said they all did? Another strawman argument.
Quote:
Dominating their home leagues. So Fetisov dominated the Soviet league more so then Orr, Coffey, Bourque, etc...in the NHL. Larionov dominated the Soviet Leagues more so then Lemieux, and Gretzky in the NHL Tretiak dominated the Soviet League more so then Ken Dryden in the NHL. That is what you are saying.
I should have invested in straw with all these strawman arguments you are making. In case you don't know what a strawman argument, "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]" (wikipedia).

Quote:
Oh yes the training in the Soviet teams was very rigurous no question. But I ask you when Bobby Orr was getting hit and hitting in the NHL. When Esposito was getting nailed by the broad street bullies of Philadelphia. When Gilbert Perreault had to avoid the reach and hitting of Larry Robinson. That was nothing compared to training. It is alot harder to play a 72 or 80 game schedule where you play 3 games in 4 nights on the road. Have to play every other day in the Stanley Cup playoffs and give it their all. Then training I am sorry.
Tougher on the body than 11 months of miltary-style training from morning to night? I think not.

Come on, one of the typical Canadian excuses for 1972 is that the Soviets were so much better conditioned due to the military-style training. You can't just forget about it now.

Quote:
That is why alot of players who play in the NHL whether they be Soviets, Swedish, Canadian etc... can not make it in the NHL or play a long career it is that hard. SO I can not believe that you are saying that the training was the reason why alot Soviet players burned out quickly. Which I am not arguing but if training burnt them out can you imagine having to play games in the NHL, how much that would have burned them out
The Swedes and Canadians never trained like the old Soviets did. The Russians obviously don't anymore. So I'm not sure how this is relevant.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2010, 02:40 AM
  #29
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starchild74 View Post
You are right when Fetisov joined the NHl he was 31 and had to adjust to a different league. I think the point that you might be missing is this. From the age of 31 people saw Fetisov play on a regular basis. He was not a top 10 defenceman in the league and was not the best Russian defenceman in the league. That title goes to Konstatinov. THe thing is that we all know Fetisov was one of the best defenceman for the Soviets no question but in his prime how many games did the average fan see of him. Now what we saw of him he was great but their are other players who played well in the Olympics or Canada Cup too but becasue it is a short tournament you can not say that for sure he is better then someone that you saw all the time. No offence to Fetisov but I rather from what I have seen have guys like Bourque, Potvin, Coffey before Fetisov easily because even though from the handful of games I saw in his prime he might be just as good as those the problem is that it is might be. Just never seen him play against top notch talent for a long period of time in his prime.

Once again just a short window of a player does not show proper evaluation of a player. When a player is drafted in the NHL they just do not watch a few games and say that is our guy. They watch many games to properly evaluate them. For example Mike Liut is a good goalie. Not the greatest goalie ever but in the 80's he was very good. If you watch the final of the Canada Cup in '81 and just watched that game you might think he was a bum and never deserved to be in the NHL. That is why when you evaluate or compare players you have to take into account everything not just one game or a tournament. Fetisov is widely believed to be the best Soviet defenceman ever and I think that is true. Could he have played in the NHL? Of course but to say he would have played in the NHL at the level of a Brap Park or the level we saw in some tournaments is not known and will never be known. You can not deal in what if's or could have been. That is why it is hard to honestly say how great the Soviet players were

I like Fetisov but maybe the reason he played better in Detroit was because they were a good team adn it made it easier for him. To be role player someone to add to the team not be the main guy. The reason Fetisov had problems adjusting to the NHL does not take away the skill or diminish what kind of player he was. It is just that when you compare Fetisov to Lidstrom lets say how can you honestly say Fetisov is better when LIdstrom played against the best players and Fetisov only did that in tournaments.

Sergei Makarov was never ever the best player in the NHL at any time no matter what criteria you may use. He was good but that is it when it comes to the NHL. Sorry but just taking his NHL years only he was never a top ten player in the NHL and in the playoffs except for '94 he never did anything really

I do not want to make it sound as though I am anti Soviet or Russian but you tell me all the Soviets that have played better then the Canadian counterparts. I mean for example are you telling me that anyone on the KLM line was better then Lemieux or Gretzky. That Fetisov was better then Coffey. Now I am not saying that in all the summit series and Canada Cups that no Soviet outplayed a canadian counterpart but to say they all did is a pure joke.

Dominating their home leagues. So Fetisov dominated the Soviet league more so then Orr, Coffey, Bourque, etc...in the NHL. Larionov dominated the Soviet Leagues more so then Lemieux, and Gretzky in the NHL Tretiak dominated the Soviet League more so then Ken Dryden in the NHL. That is what you are saying.

Oh yes the training in the Soviet teams was very rigurous no question. But I ask you when Bobby Orr was getting hit and hitting in the NHL. When Esposito was getting nailed by the broad street bullies of Philadelphia. When Gilbert Perreault had to avoid the reach and hitting of Larry Robinson. That was nothing compared to training. It is alot harder to play a 72 or 80 game schedule where you play 3 games in 4 nights on the road. Have to play every other day in the Stanley Cup playoffs and give it their all. Then training I am sorry. That is why alot of players who play in the NHL whether they be Soviets, Swedish, Canadian etc... can not make it in the NHL or play a long career it is that hard. SO I can not believe that you are saying that the training was the reason why alot Soviet players burned out quickly. Which I am not arguing but if training burnt them out can you imagine having to play games in the NHL, how much that would have burned them out
Tikhonov kept them 10-11 months a year in Barracks training, not even allowed to see their families. Doing nothing but eating, sleeping and breathing Hockey and constant intense physical training. The Soviets also played around 44 games a season in their own league.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2010, 03:06 AM
  #30
VMBM
Registered User
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
The KLM line was awesome. The 1987 Canada Cup proved this, as did the other tournaments. I think Gretzky and Lemieux were better than them though and I think that the reason being that the KLM seemed more dominant is that there wasn't a third man on that Canadian line that could compare to the KLM
Well, it was also basically a Makarov-Krutov show in the 1987 CC; Larionov was very ordinary in the series.

And it was mostly Messier's line (with Anderson and... Gartner?) that were matched against KLM. I don't remember too many shifts with Gretzky and Lemieux facing them. One noticeable example was in the beginning of the 3rd final, and oops! (hardly concrete evidence one way or another though)

VMBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2010, 03:17 AM
  #31
Zine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 8,970
vCash: 500
Let's see if we can find a pattern somewhere:

The ages at which Soviet greats were deemed past their prime and dropped from the national team:

Kharlamov 32
Mikhailov 36
Petrov 33
Vasiliev 33
Maltsev 32
Vikulov 31
Ragulin 32
Starshinov 32
Yakushev 32
Firsov 31

Hmmmm......quite telling that the "Green Unit" had to start their NHL careers at that same age.

Zine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2010, 03:18 AM
  #32
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VMBM View Post
Well, it was also basically a Makarov-Krutov show in the 1987 CC; Larionov was very ordinary in the series.

And it was mostly Messier's line (with Anderson and... Gartner?) that were matched against KLM. I don't remember too many shifts with Gretzky and Lemieux facing them. One noticeable example was in the beginning of the 3rd final, and oops! (hardly concrete evidence one way or another though)
Quote:
From game 2 Canada matched the line of Mark Messier, Mike Gartner, and Glenn Anderson linked with defensemen Rochefort and Crossman against the Soviets' main threat, the KLM line, to attempt to shut them down
From The Canada Cup of Hockey Fact and Stat Book, by H.J. Anderson, page 115

http://books.google.com/books?id=Pp-...hefort&f=false

You'd know this if you had followed the MLD

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2010, 03:44 AM
  #33
pbgoalie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 429
vCash: 500
"They were a great hockey club. Most of the Russians were small but very strong, fast, with great skills. It was the highest level of hockey that I'd ever experienced." Jean Ratelle

In the '72 series, the Russians abilities caught Canada by surprise.
No surprise when they came to play after that. I was at MSG for 2 games the Soviets
played. Red Army against the Rangers. The speed and puck control of the Soviets made the Rangers look very inferior.
The Canada Cup (I think!?) was insane. It wasn't even close. The Soviet TEAM, was so much better, controlled the puck better, and could FLY!
Makarov, was absolutely frightening. As a lifelong Ranger seat holder (family), I had been playing hockey and going to games since I was 7. The speed and passing was unreal.

The NHL players my family knew, were blown away by the talent of those guys.

pbgoalie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2010, 03:44 AM
  #34
VMBM
Registered User
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Peter Stastny should not be viewed as an island in the NHL. Initially he had the advantage of playing with his brother Anton followed by Marian. So from the standpoint of adapting to the NHL game he had advantages that other Europeans who were alone on a team did not have. Also his style and skill set were well suited for the NHL of the 1980's.
Could it be possible that I'm actually agreeing on this somewhat?

Although it is a fair point to make that even if we don't count the Russians, Peter Stastny wasn't actually considered the best player in Europe - at least not yet at the time he defected - I still doubt that many other top Europeans would have had as good, let alone better, NHL career[s], even if they had come to the NHL in their early 20s. Stastny had the size, strength, skill, will, the right timing and good people around him.

But in my book, players like Kharlamov, YOUNG Makarov & Fetisov and Firsov at least would have been 'sure bets'. I'd also like to think that Mikhailov, Petrov, Tretiak and Czechoslovaks like Martinec and Hlinka would have possibly made it big too. Someone like Krutov, for obvious reasons, is a suspect (the Soviet system probably suited him much better), as well as players like Maltsev* and Vikulov, whose numbers and level of performance (IMO) dropped considerably when facing NA opposition.
And based on his performances against North American teams, I think one would have to add Alexander Yakushev to that list of probable stars [in the NHL].

* Maltsev was very well liked/admired among the Canadian players, but:
8 games/5 points in '72
8 g./4 pts (vs. WHA) in '74
4 g./3 pts in the 1975-76 Super series etc.


Last edited by VMBM: 08-30-2010 at 03:53 AM.
VMBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2010, 04:16 AM
  #35
VMBM
Registered User
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
You'd know this if you had followed the MLD
Or I just could've checked it from my 1987 Canada Cup DVD set

Only the few and selected own that masterpiece

VMBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2010, 04:45 AM
  #36
NMF78
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Belgium
Country: Belgium
Posts: 597
vCash: 500
the top 100 or top 75 on here is laughable, total NA bias, people like Kharlamov, Tretiak Makarov should be in the top 10/top 15, the fact that they're not makes this ranking worthless

NMF78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2010, 05:00 AM
  #37
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NMF78 View Post
the top 100 or top 75 on here is laughable, total NA bias, people like Kharlamov, Tretiak Makarov should be in the top 10/top 15, the fact that they're not makes this ranking worthless
Okay then. Make a case for Kharlamov(My opinion on best Russian ever) to be in the top 10 or 15 and why he is better than those above him?

I am probably among his biggest supporters and promoters during the entire top 100 Ranking process, and even I would not rank him top 15. I would say he deserves to be higher than he is, but certainly not as high as you are proclaiming.

His most easily made comparable is Guy Lafleur, who had a similar high dominant peak, short prime, and Lafleur is only 19th. Or Mike Bossy, who had a fantastic, but short career.

I challenge you to name a few players you see him replacing high up and explain why? Using the usual criteria. Peak, Offense, Defense, Longevity

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2010, 05:09 AM
  #38
NMF78
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Belgium
Country: Belgium
Posts: 597
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
Okay then. Make a case for Kharlamov(My opinion on best Russian ever) to be in the top 10 or 15 and why he is better than those above him?

I am probably among his biggest supporters and promoters during the entire top 100 Ranking process, and even I would not rank him top 15. I would say he deserves to be higher than he is, but certainly not as high as you are proclaiming.

His most easy comparable is Guy Lafleur, who had a similar high dominant peak, short prime, and Lafleur is only 19th.

I challenge you to name a few players you see him replacing in the top 15 and explain why? Using the usual criteria. Peak, Offense, Defense, Longevity
tretiak is second only to hasek as far as goalies are concerned imo, i see that hasek is 12e, i would put both a little bit higher, around 6-8e place

kharlamov just before them & makarov just behind

NMF78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2010, 05:11 AM
  #39
ushvinder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,465
vCash: 500
When the soviets played the czechoslovaks in the world championships and olympics, that was legitimate competition, hardly amatuers. During the 1980's, the nhl started sending thier talent to the world championships, so the KLM line played against nhl caliber players many times. Makarov was a ppg player from the ages of 31-34, calling him a 'what could have been' is an insult.

ushvinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2010, 05:32 AM
  #40
VMBM
Registered User
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
When the soviets played the czechoslovaks in the world championships and olympics, that was legitimate competition, hardly amatuers. During the 1980's, the nhl started sending thier talent to the world championships, so the KLM line played against nhl caliber players many times. Makarov was a ppg player from the ages of 31-34, calling him a 'what could have been' is an insult.
It was from the 1977 World Championships on, when Canada started to send teams with NHL players (i.e. made of players whose team didn't make it to the NHL playoffs/were eliminated quickly: Chicago, LA, Toronto etc.).

Some of the best teams they had:

1982 (Maxwell, Hartsburg, van Boxmeer, Green, Giles, Lowe - Sittler, Smith, Gainey - Ciccarelli, Clarke, Barber - Napier, Gretzky, Propp - Gartner, Hawerchuk, Walter;
Goalies: Maloche, Millen)

1985 (Halward, Lidster, L. Murphy, Stevens, Macoun, Konroyd, Ledyard - Taylor, M. Lemieux, Muller, Vaive, Francis, Anderson, Smyl, Nicholls, Maloney, Dineen, Yzerman, Tanti, MacLellan; Goalies: Weeks, Riggin, Wamsley )

1989 ( Patrick, Morois, Daneyko, Babych, Ellet, Carlyle, Verbeek, Stevens, G. Anderson, Gallant, Ferraro, Muller, Ashton, Bellows, Yzerman, Hawerchuk, Dineen, Messier, McLean, McBain; Goalies: Burke, Fuhr, Sidorkiewicz)

VMBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2010, 05:42 AM
  #41
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NMF78 View Post
tretiak is second only to hasek as far as goalies are concerned imo, i see that hasek is 12e, i would put both a little bit higher, around 6-8e place

kharlamov just before them & makarov just behind
None of those players deserve to be that high.

You did not make any sort of case or present reasons whatsoever. You just said "I would rank them here"

Explain how does Kharlamov deserve to be 5th? Kharlamov had 6-7 great years before his first car accident, and then 3 or so good years after. He did not dominate the Russian scoring titles in his league(Although scoring was much different in that league), and his career was shortened by death. He went 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 5th in Russian MVP voting during his best years. I consider him a game breaker around the level of Guy Lafleur/Mike Bossy. Kharlamov was a fantastic stickhandler, skater, shooter and playmaker, while being good defensively.

The only LW comparable in the top 10 is Bobby Hull, and you are not going to convince anyone here he was better than Hull. Bobby Hull dominated goalscoring in the NHL for years to levels only Gretzky matched. Won 7 Goal scoring titles. 3 Art Ross scoring titles, and was runner up for 3 more, while placing top 10 in scoring 4 additional times, while being ranked best LW in the league 10 times. He went 2nd, 3rd, 2nd, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd, 5th, 3rd and 7th in league MVP finishes in the best league in the world. Goalies were afraid of his ridiculously hard slapshot, and defensemen never wanted to get flat footed around the fastest skater they had ever seen. And that is just his NHL career. He had 5 more very successful years in the WHA.


At his best, Kharlamov might have been just as good as Hull. But Hull was that good longer.

The other forwards in the top 6-10, Jean Beliveau and Maurice Richard, have very similar resume's, longer than Kharlamov's.

Most of the Russian posters around here try to get Kharlamov compared to and ranked with Lafleur/Bossy levels. It is ridiculous to try to get him ranked in the top 5. Many of the Russian posters here try to get Kharlamov ranked below Fetisov

Tretiak, I am also a huge supporter of. Having seen him play, I rank him as one of my top 5-7 goalies of all time. But he was certainly NOT better than Patrick Roy or Jacques Plante or Terry Sawchuk.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2010, 06:20 AM
  #42
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NMF78 View Post
tretiak is second only to hasek as far as goalies are concerned imo, i see that hasek is 12e, i would put both a little bit higher, around 6-8e place

kharlamov just before them & makarov just behind
So the two best goalies of all time just happen to be the two superstar European goalies... right.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2010, 08:20 AM
  #43
NMF78
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Belgium
Country: Belgium
Posts: 597
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
None of those players deserve to be that high.

You did not make any sort of case or present reasons whatsoever. You just said "I would rank them here"

Explain how does Kharlamov deserve to be 5th? Kharlamov had 6-7 great years before his first car accident, and then 3 or so good years after. He did not dominate the Russian scoring titles in his league(Although scoring was much different in that league), and his career was shortened by death. He went 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 5th in Russian MVP voting during his best years. I consider him a game breaker around the level of Guy Lafleur/Mike Bossy. Kharlamov was a fantastic stickhandler, skater, shooter and playmaker, while being good defensively.

The only LW comparable in the top 10 is Bobby Hull, and you are not going to convince anyone here he was better than Hull. Bobby Hull dominated goalscoring in the NHL for years to levels only Gretzky matched. Won 7 Goal scoring titles. 3 Art Ross scoring titles, and was runner up for 3 more, while placing top 10 in scoring 4 additional times, while being ranked best LW in the league 10 times. He went 2nd, 3rd, 2nd, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd, 5th, 3rd and 7th in league MVP finishes in the best league in the world. Goalies were afraid of his ridiculously hard slapshot, and defensemen never wanted to get flat footed around the fastest skater they had ever seen. And that is just his NHL career. He had 5 more very successful years in the WHA.


At his best, Kharlamov might have been just as good as Hull. But Hull was that good longer.

The other forwards in the top 6-10, Jean Beliveau and Maurice Richard, have very similar resume's, longer than Kharlamov's.

Most of the Russian posters around here try to get Kharlamov compared to and ranked with Lafleur/Bossy levels. It is ridiculous to try to get him ranked in the top 5. Many of the Russian posters here try to get Kharlamov ranked below Fetisov

Tretiak, I am also a huge supporter of. Having seen him play, I rank him as one of my top 5-7 goalies of all time. But he was certainly NOT better than Patrick Roy or Jacques Plante or Terry Sawchuk.

Russians (Europeans in general) tend to value international play higher then league play, and Kharlamov usually was the best soviet in international play

Olympics: 17 Games, 15 Goals, 21 Assists, 36 Points
WC: 105 Games, 74 Goals, 82 Assists, 156 Points

i'd say those are very impressive numbers, as for comparing the NHL with the soviet league, they are just too different in number of games, style of play...

NMF78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2010, 08:22 AM
  #44
NMF78
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Belgium
Country: Belgium
Posts: 597
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
So the two best goalies of all time just happen to be the two superstar European goalies... right.
the 2 best centers of all time are canadian, so?

NMF78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2010, 08:55 AM
  #45
Starchild74
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 324
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Dark Shadows;27580375]From the 89-90 season till the 93-94 season, all players starting at age 31 or older


Even if you look at the entire History of Hockey for players scoring between the ages of 31-35, Makarov makes top 20 in the NHL all time.
QUOTE]

Yes but when Makarov entered the NHL at the age of 31 their were no top hockey players at that age. They were all younger then him well as forwards anyway.

Yes he ranks in the top 20 for just the ages of 31-35 which is very good and I have never said he wasn't good but he does rank 92nd in that same age range when it comes to playoffs.

Starchild74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2010, 09:07 AM
  #46
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,506
vCash: 500
1978 World Junior Championships

Quote:
Originally Posted by VMBM View Post
Could it be possible that I'm actually agreeing on this somewhat?

Although it is a fair point to make that even if we don't count the Russians, Peter Stastny wasn't actually considered the best player in Europe - at least not yet at the time he defected - I still doubt that many other top Europeans would have had as good, let alone better, NHL career[s], even if they had come to the NHL in their early 20s. Stastny had the size, strength, skill, will, the right timing and good people around him.

But in my book, players like Kharlamov, YOUNG Makarov & Fetisov and Firsov at least would have been 'sure bets'. I'd also like to think that Mikhailov, Petrov, Tretiak and Czechoslovaks like Martinec and Hlinka would have possibly made it big too. Someone like Krutov, for obvious reasons, is a suspect (the Soviet system probably suited him much better), as well as players like Maltsev* and Vikulov, whose numbers and level of performance (IMO) dropped considerably when facing NA opposition.
And based on his performances against North American teams, I think one would have to add Alexander Yakushev to that list of probable stars [in the NHL].

* Maltsev was very well liked/admired among the Canadian players, but:
8 games/5 points in '72
8 g./4 pts (vs. WHA) in '74
4 g./3 pts in the 1975-76 Super series etc.
Four final comments about the Stastny's. All three made a choice that precluded a return to their homeland. Anton and Marian did not perform to their projections, especially in terms of longevity, in the NHL. Peter Stastny does not hold Czechoslovakian hockey in high regard. Also Peter Stastny has commented about the length of the NHL schedule contributing to the physical and mental fatigue, making adaptation difficult especially during the first season.

1978 World Junior Hockey Championships were in Canada, centered in Montreal. Featured players were Fetisov - 3rd WJC, Makarov _ 2 WJC, Gretzky,Mats Naslund, A.Stastny. Results, standings, AST follow:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_Wo..._Championships

For older junior players neither Makarov or Fetisov stood-out as much as Wayne Gretzky especially when both had the advantage of playing a number of seasons with and against mature men in the Soviet Union. On the AST, a point could be made that Makarov could have replaced Naslund or Statsny but it comes down to a variety of factors - consistency, projection, team value, playing above or below expectations,experience etc. Plus revising the AST serves no purpose. What was very interesting was that Fetisov was much more important to the success of the team and Makarov and not the other way around. Interesting role reversal for Soviet hockey.

Projecting NHL careers would be interesting. Forwards, Bobby Smith was Canada's second best forward, #1 overall pick. Makarov as an island without the benefits of a five man unit, better than Anton Stastny who never reached his projection in the NHL despite having the benefits of Peter and Marian. Mats Naslund took a few years of Swedish hockey and two seasons in the NHL with a solid Canadiens team before finding his comfort zone and reaching optimum performance.

Vyacheslav Fetisov is very difficult to project. Though they did not play in the 1978WJC, Ray Bourque and Paul Coffey coming from weak teams and coaching when put in a much better NHL situation flourished from the start. Larry Murphy another contemporary who did not play, started his NHL career with a weak LA team after playing for a strong well coached Peterborough team and although he made the HHOF did not play-up to projections. Well supported Fetisov could have had a Ray Bourque type career except for the longevity, as an island the career could have gone in many directions.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2010, 09:12 AM
  #47
jcbio11
Registered User
 
jcbio11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bratislava
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 1,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
So the two best goalies of all time just happen to be the two superstar European goalies... right.
How about the fact that according to the HOH Top 100 list ten best players of all time are all canadien (too lazy to check after that)? I mean really???

jcbio11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2010, 09:13 AM
  #48
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcbio11 View Post
How about the fact that according to the HOH Top 100 list ten best players of all time are all canadien (too lazy to check after that)? I mean really???
For the record, the highest ranked Euros on the list are Hasek at 12, Lidstrom at 17, Jagr at 23, Fetisov at 33, and Kharlamov at 35.

The fact is that Canada has played hockey at a high level for far longer than any other country.

And don't worry, barring injury, Ovechkin should be a top 10 player by the end of his career.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2010, 09:19 AM
  #49
Up the Irons
Registered User
 
Up the Irons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,494
vCash: 508
[QUOTE=pbgoalie;27580688]"They were a great hockey club. Most of the Russians were small but very strong, fast, with great skills. It was the highest level of hockey that I'd ever experienced." Jean Ratelle

In the '72 series, the Russians abilities caught Canada by surprise.
No surprise when they came to play after that. I was at MSG for 2 games the Soviets
played. Red Army against the Rangers. The speed and puck control of the Soviets made the Rangers look very inferior.
The Canada Cup (I think!?) was insane. It wasn't even close. The Soviet TEAM, was so much better, controlled the puck better, and could FLY!
Makarov, was absolutely frightening. As a lifelong Ranger seat holder (family), I had been playing hockey and going to games since I was 7. The speed and passing was unreal.

The NHL players my family knew, were blown away by the talent of those guys.


QUOTE]
your eyes don't lie. in 81 the Soviets spanked Canada, was it 8-1!! Their calibre of play was equal, or higher, than our best. Even today, 3 or 4 of the highest calibre players are Russian. The country is factory for high skilled talent (we beat them because we produce all types of players needed for a great team). To suggest that no Soviet players are in the top 20 is ludicrous. the top 10? well, I'll concede that that is a tough group to crack, but top 20 easily.[/

Up the Irons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2010, 09:22 AM
  #50
jcbio11
Registered User
 
jcbio11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bratislava
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 1,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
1 For the record, the highest ranked Euros on the list are Hasek at 12, Lidstrom at 17, Jagr at 23, Fetisov at 33, and Kharlamov at 35.
2
The fact is that Canada has played hockey at a high level for far longer than any other country.


And don't worry, barring injury, Ovechkin should be a top 10 player by the end of his career.
1 - So pretty much just token Europeans on a list with incredible north american bias.

2 - How is that so? You'd have me believe that suddenly, after 1989, all other countries caught up? Or could it be that players who didn't play in the NHL (during their primes) just don't get the credit they deserve? It's the same thing with HHOF, should really be called NHL Hall of Fame and then I'd have no problem with their selections.

jcbio11 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 05:57 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.