1981 Canada Cup

[VMBM]

When looking at shot differential, it is important to note that Canada would shoot a lot more than the Soviets. The Soviets would wait for a great scoring chance and then shoot. Canada would shoot from anywhere.

I think that had changed a bit, though. It was a lot more obvious in the early/mid Seventies. The Soviets' defensive play had also greatly improved, so the difference was usually not so big anymore.

 

[patnyrnyg]

I remember reading in Gretzky's autobiography, he felt it was a case of too many chiefs and not enough Indians. Wrote about how the brass called a meeting the night before the final in a conference room of the hotel. Players sat there for 2+ hours wondering what was going on and then one of the bigwigs walking in and dismissing the players. Said the players were REALLY annoyed.

 

[Rob]

Hi 'Rob'...

The mood in Canada was 'shocked and appalled' after the 8-1 loss, then 'disgusted' over Eagleson's immature behaviour with the trophy.

The Soviet victory was well earned. On the night, there was no question who the better team was. They deserved to win the 'Cup' (and take it home). But the result didn't speak for how the tournament played out as a whole. . .

Canada finished the regular tournament with a goal differential of 32 for and 13 against - for plus 19.
The Soviets finished with 20 for and 13 against. Plus 7.
That's a 12-goal advantage... over just 5 games.

In the regular tournament, Canada crushed the Soviets, 7-3.
Canada put up five straight goals in that game's third period...
in a seven minute stretch.
In that game Canada outshot the Soviets 33-23.
On that night, there was no question who the better team was, either. . .

Canada was crushed in the final game, no doubt. But they outshot the Soviets 27-26.

Blowouts happen in hockey. Often they are not a barometer of actual talent differentials.
Nor were they in the 1981 Canada Cup.

I wonder if the Soviets were "playing possum" in the round robin?

 

[Yamaguchi*]

The Soviets had one of the best teams on earth and had already beaten the NHL allstars just 2 years before this. While I doubt anyone was predicting an 8-1 blowout, I wouldn't see any reason to compare this to the miracle on ice at all.

Well, compare the Soviet roster at the Challenge Cup with their Canada Cup roster and you will see that the Russians had a pretty rejuvenated team in 1981.

Most veterans (Mikhailov, Petrov, Kharlamov etc) were gone. The Soviet team had lots of new faces -- young guys like Fetisov, Krutov, Larionov, Shepelev, Khomutov.

Therefore, that tremendous 8-1 performance from a young and not particularly experienced team was sort of a miracle.

 

[shazariahl]

I wonder if the Soviets were "playing possum" in the round robin?

Doubtful. Even in the Challenge Cup, which has been mentioned here in connection with the 1981 CC, the Soviets lost game 1, and had to come back in the series. Game 2, Tretiak played horribly and the NHL despite being out played could have won that game if Dryden had made a couple more key saves (not blaming Dryden - this was one of the few occasions where he outplayed Tretiak quite easily - but it certainly wasn't his best game either which is probably why the NHL went with Cheevers in game 3 for the 0-6 loss).

Fact is, both teams were good and were capable of beating the other on any given night. IMO, the Soviets were the better of the two (which is why they won in 79 and 81), but despite some lop-sided scores, the NHL teams were also able to win and take games from them as well.

 

[shazariahl]

Well, compare the Soviet roster at the Challenge Cup with their Canada Cup roster and you will see that the Russians had a pretty rejuvenated team in 1981.

Most veterans (Mikhailov, Petrov, Kharlamov etc) were gone. The Soviet team had lots of new faces -- young guys like Fetisov, Krutov, Larionov, Shepelev, Khomutov.

Therefore, that tremendous 8-1 performance from a young and not particularly experienced team was sort of a miracle.

True, but the soviets had already proven on multiple occasions they could play with (and even defeat) Canada's best. They had proven players, coaching, and still had plenty of vets to go with those young faces. They also had the swagger and reputation of a hockey powerhouse. The US college students hadn't proven anything. One could argue that several players from that team went on to have success later, but the same can be said of all the young Soviets you listed.

That's not to say that losing 8-1 wasn't a shock, but that was partly because of the magnitude of the loss. When you lose a close game, there's always excuses. When you lose 8-1, there's not really much you can say other than that they were better than you.

While I'm sure Canada was still the favorite going into the 81 Canada Cup, most would have picked the Soviets as the #2 team. Some may have even had them #1. No one on earth would have picked the US team to win gold going into the 1980 Olympics.


edit: just realized I'm discussing this with the person who said Fedorov was a better player than Gretzky. It suddenly occurs to me that you may not be the most impartial person on the subject of Soviet hockey.

 

[Hammer Time]

I wonder if the Soviets were "playing possum" in the round robin?

Tretiak didn't start, so there's a sign that the Soviets weren't taking the game particularly seriously.

Well, compare the Soviet roster at the Challenge Cup with their Canada Cup roster and you will see that the Russians had a pretty rejuvenated team in 1981.

Most veterans (Mikhailov, Petrov, Kharlamov etc) were gone. The Soviet team had lots of new faces -- young guys like Fetisov, Krutov, Larionov, Shepelev, Khomutov.

Therefore, that tremendous 8-1 performance from a young and not particularly experienced team was sort of a miracle.

How so? Kharlamov/Petrov/Mikhailov was aging (and the former passed away during the tournament IIRC) and the Green Unit and other young players were entering their prime after having dominated the 1981 WCs. It would have been more of a miracle if the Soviets won with KPM being the top line.

 

[Yamaguchi*]

True, but the soviets had already proven on multiple occasions they could play with (and even defeat) Canada's best. They had proven players, coaching, and still had plenty of vets to go with those young faces. They also had the swagger and reputation of a hockey powerhouse. The US college students hadn't proven anything. One could argue that several players from that team went on to have success later, but the same can be said of all the young Soviets you listed.

That's not to say that losing 8-1 wasn't a shock, but that was partly because of the magnitude of the loss. When you lose a close game, there's always excuses. When you lose 8-1, there's not really much you can say other than that they were better than you.

While I'm sure Canada was still the favorite going into the 81 Canada Cup, most would have picked the Soviets as the #2 team. Some may have even had them #1. No one on earth would have picked the US team to win gold going into the 1980 Olympics.


edit: just realized I'm discussing this with the person who said Fedorov was a better player than Gretzky. It suddenly occurs to me that you may not be the most impartial person on the subject of Soviet hockey.

Those college students trained together for like 7 months prior to the Olympics. They thrashed Czechoslovakia (ranked No 2) and tied Sweden. And then they beat the Soviets in a close game. Sounds like a pretty logical outcome to me. Nothing really miraculous.

Re Fedorov -- Gretzky said he was the best. I just quoted him. Let us stick to the topic.

 

[nutbar]

I remember reading in Gretzky's autobiography, he felt it was a case of too many chiefs and not enough Indians. Wrote about how the brass called a meeting the night before the final in a conference room of the hotel. Players sat there for 2+ hours wondering what was going on and then one of the bigwigs walking in and dismissing the players. Said the players were REALLY annoyed.

Yeah, he said the entire tournament was the worst experience of his career. After they beat the US in the semi final, apparently Eagleson's people were screaming at the players in the dressing room, saying they would get killed against the Soviets if they played the same way. Well you can't say they were wrong.

 

[GameEight]

When you lose a close game, there's always excuses. When you lose 8-1, there's not really much you can say other than that they were better than you.

Sorry, the logic just doesn't stand. A clearly superior team doesn't blow a third period lead and give up five goals in seven minutes to the same inferior opponent a few days earlier.

Arguably, that was the biggest loss for the Soviets in the 'best v best' era.

These things happen.

 

[Hammer Time]

Those college students trained together for like 7 months prior to the Olympics. They thrashed Czechoslovakia (ranked No 2) and tied Sweden. And then they beat the Soviets in a close game. Sounds like a pretty logical outcome to me. Nothing really miraculous.

Re Fedorov -- Gretzky said he was the best. I just quoted him. Let us stick to the topic.

The USSR defeated Sweden 13-1, Finland 7-1, and Czechoslovakia 8-3 at the 1981 Worlds. The early 80s was the apex of Soviet hockey. And then they defeated Canada in the Canada Cup final. Sounds like a pretty logical outcome to me. Nothing really miraculous.

 

[Yamaguchi*]

The USSR defeated Sweden 13-1, Finland 7-1, and Czechoslovakia 8-3 at the 1981 Worlds. The early 80s was the apex of Soviet hockey. And then they defeated Canada in the Canada Cup final. Sounds like a pretty logical outcome to me. Nothing really miraculous.

Well, the USSR scored less goals against the semi-amateurs from Finland than against team Canada with Gretzky, Lafleur, Trottier etc etc. Truly miraculous.

 

[shazariahl]

Well, the USSR scored less goals against the semi-amateurs from Finland than against team Canada with Gretzky, Lafleur, Trottier etc etc. Truly miraculous.

But you mentioned before about how the US team trained together for 7 months prior to the Olympics, so it wasn't really miraculous when they won. The Canadian team didn't train together at all until the tournament. So if training together was such a major factor, shouldn't it have been obvious than Canada would lose, given their lack of training time together before the Canada Cup?

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Those college students trained together for like 7 months prior to the Olympics. Sounds like a pretty logical outcome to me. Nothing really miraculous.

I had no idea that the US team spent so much time preparing, but I googled it and it seems you are right. This actually explains a lot. It shocks me how much otherwise knowledgeable hockey fans overlook the critical factor of team preparation time when it comes to international hockey. It takes a boatload of superior individual talent to overcome the gap when playing teams with considerably more prep time and this is just another good example of that. This afterall is the main way the Soviet teams and to a lesser degree the Czechs were able to excel internationally with relatively small hockey programs at home.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Well, the USSR scored less goals against the semi-amateurs from Finland than against team Canada with Gretzky, Lafleur, Trottier etc etc. Truly miraculous.

At those same World Championships they were tied 4-4 by a Canadian team coached by Don Cherry

 

[GameEight]

It takes a boatload of superior individual talent to overcome the gap when playing teams with considerably more prep time and this is just another good example of that.

Yes, although this leaves out the youth factor.

I think if there's one thing I've learned over the years is that the game of ice hockey is a peculiar cat. When a team learns to a system, there's something about the game that tends to encourage more equal outcomes and possibility of upsets, more so than other sports, I think.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Yes, although this leaves out the youth factor.

I think if there's one thing I've learned over the years is that the game of ice hockey is a peculiar cat. When a team learns to a system, there's something about the game that tends to encourage more equal outcomes and possibility of upsets, more so than other sports, I think.

In league play we see all kinds of crazy, somewhat random results on a regular basis. Iirc last year the Stanley cup champs had a losing record against the two worst teams in the league. Teams with clearly more talented rosters get eliminated in the playoffs all the time, etc, etc. I just find it funny reading all the far out conclusions people make from the results of one game in international hockey, especially when one team has way more experience playing together than the other.

 

[nutbar]

I had no idea that the US team spent so much time preparing, but I googled it and it seems you are right. This actually explains a lot. It shocks me how much otherwise knowledgeable hockey fans overlook the critical factor of team preparation time when it comes to international hockey. It takes a boatload of superior individual talent to overcome the gap when playing teams with considerably more prep time and this is just another good example of that. This afterall is the main way the Soviet teams and to a lesser degree the Czechs were able to excel internationally with relatively small hockey programs at home.

But Canada's team spend the same amount of time preparing for 1980 and it didn't do them much good.

 

[HuGort]

1 game blowout. Happened in Montreal game also during Summit Series '72. I think Canada would have won a longer series as they had better team over whole tourney..

 

[VMBM]

But Canada's team spend the same amount of time preparing for 1980 and it didn't do them much good.

Yeah, I'd say that the Miracle was really one-off, and with both the Soviets and Czechoslovakia in the middle of a 'generational transition' (simply put: neither team was at its best), it was possible to happen. A great feat and a great story nevertheless.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

But Canada's team spend the same amount of time preparing for 1980 and it didn't do them much good.

Yes, you are right, there are certainly no guarantees and what the Americans did was still pretty unlikely.

 

[brianscot]

The 1980 US Olympic win needs to be viewed within it's own context.

In the 1970's, it was still a rarity for a US born player to excel in the NHL, let alone international hockey.

No US Olympic hockey team had accomplished much since the 1960 Squaw Valley win.

Beating the Soviets was in no way a logical outcome.

There was no specific evidence suggesting it would happen, especially considering that just a few weeks earlier, the Soviets blew out the US Olympic team 10-3 at Madison Square Garden.

The term miracle is too strong, but the win was still highly unlikely.

 

[Yamaguchi*]

The 1980 US Olympic win needs to be viewed within it's own context.

In the 1970's, it was still a rarity for a US born player to excel in the NHL, let alone international hockey.

No US Olympic hockey team had accomplished much since the 1960 Squaw Valley win.

Beating the Soviets was in no way a logical outcome.

There was no specific evidence suggesting it would happen, especially considering that just a few weeks earlier, the Soviets blew out the US Olympic team 10-3 at Madison Square Garden.

The term miracle is too strong, but the win was still highly unlikely.

If you can beat the Czechs 7-3, then beating the Soviets 4-3 seems rather logical.

 

[McGuillicuddy]

Yeah, I'd say that the Miracle was really one-off, and with both the Soviets and Czechoslovakia in the middle of a 'generational transition' (simply put: neither team was at its best), it was possible to happen.

Funny, that was my feeling about the 81 Canada Cup . Lafleur was on his way down and Gretzky on his way up but neither at their best. Only the likes of Bossy and Dionne were at their peak in 81 - great players to be sure, but hardly the generational talent that Canada typically has to lead the team.

 

[brianscot]

If you can beat the Czechs 7-3, then beating the Soviets 4-3 seems rather logical.

In some sense. But 1980 was hardly a strong showing for the Czechs. They finished in fifth place and could only beat Romania, Norway, and Germany in the first round.

Only Japan and the Netherlands had worse records than the teams the Czechs could beat.

The Soviets went 5-0 in the first round and outscored their opponents 51-11.

In that Olympic year, the Czechs and Soviets weren't comparable at all.

Oddly enough, the Czechs did have the three highest scorers in the first round (Milan Novy, Peter Stastny, and Jarsoslav Pouzar) which means they did a nice job beating up on weak opponents in the first round.