WJC: 2021 Russia Roster Talk

[My3Sons]

I have extremely low expectations for this year's team and my mind is already on next year.

We'll have real game-breaking talent with Chibrikov, Michkov, Miroshnichenko and Yurov. It's not fun to watch this year's scrubs.

I do think this year's team can medal though.

Canadian fans said the same thing about Byfield. Even with a year of experience the second overall NHL draft pick is struggling at 18. Some Canadian fans wanted a 16 year old on the team. As talented as he is my guess is he didn't look so great against the older guys in tryouts. If those players you name are going to be 18 next year and all first time players it's going to be asking a lot for them to beat much more experienced if less talented players. Russia will look much better when its players return for a second go round next time and if they have a system in place that works for them.

 

[Fantomas]

Canadian fans said the same thing about Byfield. Even with a year of experience the second overall NHL draft pick is struggling at 18. Some Canadian fans wanted a 16 year old on the team. As talented as he is my guess is he didn't look so great against the older guys in tryouts. If those players you name are going to be 18 next year and all first time players it's going to be asking a lot for them to beat much more experienced if less talented players. Russia will look much better when its players return for a second go round next time and if they have a system in place that works for them.

I think Byfield is overrated. I've seen him in other tournaments, closer to his age group, like Hlinka, and he was just ok.

 

[Statsy]

Any true Russian hockey fan yearns for the return of the Soviet school of beautiful and dominant hockey. It was almost like an art form, like the Bolshoi Ballet on ice, so beautiful to watch. But, as Larionov personally attested, being the loudest and most vocal critic of the Soviet hockey school back in the late 80's, it is an absolute bitch to train for. Soviet teams logged practice times, consistently, of 13-1400 hours of practice each year. The training was so grueling that Tretiak noted that "we pissed blood!" So you can't just throw 20 guys together who barely know each other and install that kind of intricate system for a 10-day youth tournament.

One of the hallmarks of the Soviet school was its focus on "muscle memory." In practice, everything was done at the fastest possible speed, even if passing was off the mark. In games, Soviet teams played at such a speed that it looked like opposing teams were standing still. In contrast, the Nutty Professor's system focuses everything on a slow build, constantly dropping backward passes to regroup. That made the Czechs job incredibly easy by allowing them to leisurely line up 5 defenders in the neutral zone, let the Russians play with the puck in their defensive zone as long as they wanted, but when they finally decided to come out, it took away any passing options and forced them to stickhandle through 5 defenders to get to the blueline. Now that the Nutty Professor's system is exposed, he faces the daunting task of trying to install changes with only two games left until the medal round.

So, is the attempt to revive the elements of the Soviet hockey school a lost cause? Not necessarily. They could do what Herb Brooks, USA coach of the Miracle on Ice did in advance of the 1980 Olympics. They could enter a Russian U20 National Team in the KHL or VHL for the full season, with the games counting in the standings, to avoid any "exhibition game" mentality. The boys would become men, and they would be tough to contend with in future WJC's.

I think the term “Nutty Professor “ is a little uncalled for, but that aside I do agree that it’s difficult to instill the old Soviet system in such a compressed time frame. With that said, you have to start somewhere. Perhaps if all levels buy into this, we can start seeing a true systemic change taking place in just a few short years. I do think you need some sort of USA type hothouse program with the players staying together as you mentioned.

As for this team let’s not write them off just yet. They were good in the Karjala Cup, they were good vs Canada in the pre-tourney game, and they were excellent against the US. One uninspired effort does not define a team. If it did, Canada and the US would also be in a lot of trouble right now.

 

[Nut Upstrom]

You comments about how Larionov was supposedly raised rid me of any interest to read this. This is utter nonsense and full of modern day most perverted ideology.

Note that I am firmly in the anti-Larionov camp. But I like facts and love the truth.

There are probably both facts and truth in that article, but I could care less if you read it.

 

[Atas2000]

Watch again, Kuznetsov is not on the ice. Chistyakov is on the ice but not really in the play. Chinakhov is backchecking (I've been telling you, he is a good backchecker) and he has to cut off Rychlovsky, because Rychlovsky has Mukhamadullin cleanly beat. That is the right play. Mukhamadullin has a short window to switch over to Koffer, but he does not see him in time, and amazingly Rychlovsky found Koffer.



As much as I have come to love Chinakhov I have low expectations of him weaving through the zone handling the puck. His transition game isn't that good. He is much better at pressuring D and winning pucks on the forecheck but Larionov's system does not utilize that. Amirov on the other hand is a great puckhandler. If even he can't gain the zone you have to wonder if Larionov's system is completely useless against a turtling defence, and it is time to give it up.

I only re-watched the short highlights after the game for goals. I obviously mistook Chinakhov's 21 for Kuznetsov's 2. My bad. Still the whole sequence started with Mukhamadullin's blunder. Yeah, hard to blame a winger for not taking the right man in that situation though. But that is something Mukhamadullin also might learn still. Sometimes a defenceman has to direct other players to help him out. Should have somehow shouted to Chinakhov to take the other guy. And he could also just go for the other guy right away. Also just defenceman basics. When you give up the breakaway you leave the goalie to deal with the puck carrier and try to prevent a pass or hinder the second guy from scoring comfortably in any way possible. He sort of was too slow to turn around and decide what to do, however it was mostly too late anyway. And Chistyakov's position is exactly why Mukhamadullin should not have made the play. There was no one to help him out after the giveaway.

And I want a coach to have more than one system too. Otherwise he is figurd out and beat. Next game is with all due respect a free practice, but Sweden will be a serious test, especially after Larionov revealed his weknesses.

 

[BlitzSnipe]

On the non-hockey side I dislike him as a person, to put it mildly. That does not mean I would not admit he could be a good or even great coach if he was that is.

And that brings me to the hockey side. First and foremost I think we have a Edmonton front-office situation from a couple of years ago all over here. Rotenberg Jr. obviously loves to have some past greats with big recognizable names around him(which is understandable as he is fairly young for his position). Then ffs give Larionov the best seat, invite him to some events with buffet and special guests. Giving him the reigns of the U20 NT right away without any track record and most importantly ahead of coaches who had to grind out all the way up the ladder is questionable at best and insulting to those coaches. Larionov literally had no time or opportunity to gather experience as head coach, go through victories AND losses, find out which of his ideas work or fail.

He looked completely lost for words in the presser yesterday. Mumbling something about "they blocked many shots". Grrreat! Maybe if he had more experience he would make the right simple move, just take all the blame, relieve pressure on the kids, avoid going into detail(we don't need to know(at least now) as we have no influence on what is happening in he locker room anyway).

That brings me to the personal level again a bit. It think he has huge ego. He is so entrenched in his self-perception as The Professor, that it would be hard for him to admit failure. I am worried he could put his ego ahead of team success, just to keep his fine vest on.

Back to hockey itself, as already mentioned in the thread he was given responsibility for the PP last year, it was horribad. His PP in this tournament is horribad. I see a pattern there.

Then you mention it, nothing about that czech game should have been unexpected. Not only was Larionov unprepared(his tactics were insanely blunt and simply not working), but never changed crap throughout the game. That is very concerning. Of course "they blocked many shots", but what did you do to avoid that?

There are basically two simple on paper ways to break up that czech defence. One is dump-ins. And while this is so not-russian some russian coaches did surprise and beat czech teams in the past when Russians started dumping it past the czech wall in the neutral zone and constantly just rushing in and fighting for pucks in the OZ.

Then there is the more russian approach of beating the trap through crisp passing in the neutral zone. It is helped by the very low forecheck by the Czechs. There literally was no czech forward forecheking beyond our blueline, so you'd have absolute freedom to start the breakout in the own zone without pressure. The big trick is you can't have extensive east-west passing in the neutral zone which is sort of a part of that soviet game Larionov wanted back. The passing in the neutral zone should be quick AND more north-south to try and send a guy in with the puck behind the trap. That also requires forwards to NOT go through the neutral zone at the same height. If they do, they just bump into the five czech guys completely clogging the neutral zone. It they attempt to pass to one another, there are three to five opponents between them. The problem yesterday was it happened all the time. Russians would try skating through the neutral zone at the same height. That left them without passing options as east-west passes were all well covered and resulted into them trying to bulldozer through czech defencemen at the boards and lose the puck mostly. It was like they never heard of shorter, faster cross-ice or north-south passes to put the puck behind the defensive line of Czechs.

Backpasses? They did try this when say Mukhamadullin would just beyond the own blue line majectically and slowly turn around completely to wait until everybody got his message he is going to pass it back to the accelerating guy behind him. Just too slow, too obvious and in the wrong place. That should have happened further up the ice, the drop passes should be shorter and the accelerating guy should be speeding like his life depends on it, not skating at average speed to give opposition time to adjust. It is again troubling as those drop passes were THE brand of soviet hockey Larionov is supposed to be a professor in.

The in-game adjustments. That is what experince gives you. Larionov does not have nearly enough of it as head coach. He should have been through dozens of games in which opponents try to play the trap against him. He wasn't.

I am willing to give it time and as I have already mentioned I have no problem with honoring good coaching from a guy I dislike on the personal level. But in my book then it should be like this: give Larionov a U16 team, or be superkind to him and give him the Michkov-Miroshnichenko team, let him work with them, go through some tournaments, learn the coaching trade. Just giving him the U20 right away looks pre-mature.

I agree. I also think Larionov's ego might be getting the best of him. He certainly likes his own glamour and image as The Professor, as Atas mentioned. However, I agree that he simply doesn't have the experience to back it all up. He has basically shown that he is unwilling to change his strategy as the game goes along. That is a sign of stubbornness and inflexibility. The Swedes did fine breaking up that Czech defence, I don't think he should be bringing up any excuses. We might be in for a short tournament and a big disappointment this year if Larionov doesn't become more flexible and doesn't learn from his (obvious) mistakes.

 

[majormajor]

I only re-watched the short highlights after the game for goals. I obviously mistook Chinakhov's 21 for Kuznetsov's 2. My bad. Still the whole sequence started with Mukhamadullin's blunder. Yeah, hard to blame a winger for not taking the right man in that situation though. But that is something Mukhamadullin also might learn still. Sometimes a defenceman has to direct other players to help him out. Should have somehow shouted to Chinakhov to take the other guy. And he could also just go for the other guy right away. Also just defenceman basics. When you give up the breakaway you leave the goalie to deal with the puck carrier and try to prevent a pass or hinder the second guy from scoring comfortably in any way possible. He sort of was too slow to turn around and decide what to do, however it was mostly too late anyway. And Chistyakov's position is exactly why Mukhamadullin should not have made the play. There was no one to help him out after the giveaway.

And I want a coach to have more than one system too. Otherwise he is figurd out and beat. Next game is with all due respect a free practice, but Sweden will be a serious test, especially after Larionov revealed his weknesses.

Chinakhov took the right man. He is in the right place. Mukhamadullin failed to take the right man (Koffer). It would have been better for Chinakhov if he would be skating backwards, he could see that there is a trailer coming and maybe get a stick in the pass lane. His main duty is to keep Rychlovsky from walking in on the goaltender, and he did that.

 

[My3Sons]

Chinakhov took the right man. He is in the right place. Mukhamadullin failed to take the right man (Koffer). It would have been better for Chinakhov if he would be skating backwards, he could see that there is a trailer coming and maybe get a stick in the pass lane. His main duty is to keep Rychlovsky from walking in on the goaltender, and he did that.

I think that part of the issue is that the players are dealing with a coach that has instilled a detailed and complex offensive system. It's in line with Larionov's background. Is there much effort being put into organizing and setting up the defense to actually play defense? If not, that could explain some of the disconnect.

 

[Yakushev72]

I think the term “Nutty Professor “ is a little uncalled for, but that aside I do agree that it’s difficult to instill the old Soviet system in such a compressed time frame. With that said, you have to start somewhere. Perhaps if all levels buy into this, we can start seeing a true systemic change taking place in just a few short years. I do think you need some sort of USA type hothouse program with the players staying together as you mentioned.

As for this team let’s not write them off just yet. They were good in the Karjala Cup, they were good vs Canada in the pre-tourney game, and they were excellent against the US. One uninspired effort does not define a team. If it did, Canada and the US would also be in a lot of trouble right now.

The US development program is a good example of how you have to invest time, quality coaching and money to get it to pay a dividend. USA teams are dominant at the youth levels where the development program feeds players, but falls off considerably at the senior level. But the payoff of the program is obvious.

As for Russia, they won't win the tournament playing on the perimeter. The Czechs showed how using the football "build" from the defensive zone can be shut down by loading up the neutral zone with 5 defenders and forcing the Russians to stickhandle through the maze. Other teams surely took note! They are going to have to do some serious adaptation, or fighting for the Bronze will be their best option.

 

[Atas2000]

Chinakhov took the right man. He is in the right place. Mukhamadullin failed to take the right man (Koffer). It would have been better for Chinakhov if he would be skating backwards, he could see that there is a trailer coming and maybe get a stick in the pass lane. His main duty is to keep Rychlovsky from walking in on the goaltender, and he did that.

Either way they should have taken different players to defend. And skating backwatds is exactly the defenceman-forward thing. A defenceman would probably be aware of that.

 

[majormajor]

I think that part of the issue is that the players are dealing with a coach that has instilled a detailed and complex offensive system. It's in line with Larionov's background. Is there much effort being put into organizing and setting up the defense to actually play defense? If not, that could explain some of the disconnect.

The new system might be mentally taxing, but on that play it is just a player missing his assignment. I highly doubt Larionov would ask anything different from a NA coach there.

The US development program is a good example of how you have to invest time, quality coaching and money to get it to pay a dividend. USA teams are dominant at the youth levels where the development program feeds players, but falls off considerably at the senior level. But the payoff of the program is obvious.

As for Russia, they won't win the tournament playing on the perimeter. The Czechs showed how using the football "build" from the defensive zone can be shut down by loading up the neutral zone with 5 defenders and forcing the Russians to stickhandle through the maze. Other teams surely took note! They are going to have to do some serious adaptation, or fighting for the Bronze will be their best option.

Other teams aren't going to try stickhandling through a maze for 60 minutes. They already know better than Larionov. If faced with that defense, they will chip and chase, and force the Czechs to turnover pucks deep in their zone, and they will go to the net and force the defenders to fight for position. That's what the Czechs don't want you to do.

 

[VVP]

It really doesn't matter who covered whom. Bottom line is the Czech team had a very simple plan. Play passive defense, block everything you can, but when you get the puck you skate with it as hard as you can. They had three chances, converted on two. Both goals are pretty similar, turnover at the blue line and then the race. Czech team is a very average, lacking talent team. But they found kids who were willing to skate hard races when needed, they got rewarded. After seeing how they were willing to sacrifice their bodies Larionov should have made adjustments, get the puck deep, try to cycle low. Instead, all of Russian offense was pathetically concentrated closer to the blue line with a poorly constructed shot with no line open. Another thing is how slow they came out of their own end. It almost looked like their admired their useless passing in their own end. Most of the attacks were developing very slow with enough time for the Czech to regroup and set-up their defense. I think this was a weak Czech team that was solidly prepared and coached. Larionov was just not ready for this development while the team panicked.

 

[VVP]

Then you are too young to have seen it. The Soviet teams were like a machine. They went out and operated the way they had trained thousands of times...and they damn well had better do it right.

When they scored, there was little to no emotion. Russian teams today are the exact opposite of that.

Hey, when you hear someone tell you again about soulless, emotionless Soviet robots tell them they have been brainwashed, you can also show them this video. Virtually there is no difference in how we used to celebrate goals.

 

[Passionis]

It really doesn't matter who covered whom. Bottom line is the Czech team had a very simple plan. Play passive defense, block everything you can, but when you get the puck you skate with it as hard as you can. They had three chances, converted on two. Both goals are pretty similar, turnover at the blue line and then the race. Czech team is a very average, lacking talent team. But they found kids who were willing to skate hard races when needed, they got rewarded. After seeing how they were willing to sacrifice their bodies Larionov should have made adjustments, get the puck deep, try to cycle low. Instead, all of Russian offense was pathetically concentrated closer to the blue line with a poorly constructed shot with no line open. Another thing is how slow they came out of their own end. It almost looked like their admired their useless passing in their own end. Most of the attacks were developing very slow with enough time for the Czech to regroup and set-up their defense. I think this was a weak Czech team that was solidly prepared and coached. Larionov was just not ready for this development while the team panicked.

Yup, it's not the fact that they lost.. It's how they lost.
Some painful points:
-They controlled the play yet were outshot by a team playing defenses outshot in the 2nd period
-Despite clearly not producing ANY valuable chances there were no changes in tactics
-despite all the shot blocking there were no fake outs to go around the sprawling Czechs
-for a combination game passing was slower than the czechs
-looks on players faces were of defeat before the game was anywhere near over.

 

[PettersonHughes]

Not at his age. He is still an underager there, remember? And very shaky is obviously overblowing it. He was rock solid mostly with a couple of bad rebounds, but also a couple of game changing saves. Looking at his overall progress I am not at all worried. And I expect him to be good to great throughout this tournament.

I also don't think Spencer Knight is a worse prospect than I thought of him before the Russia game.

Does he normally stickhandle and wander out so much? He almost got burned by the Czechs and if I'm a defenseman I'd hate to have an erratic goalie who's not really predictable and would just go out for a skate. Sure he's Dominik Hasek/ Marty Turco like in terms of talent but you can only get lucky so many times.

 

[BlitzSnipe]

It really doesn't matter who covered whom. Bottom line is the Czech team had a very simple plan. Play passive defense, block everything you can, but when you get the puck you skate with it as hard as you can. They had three chances, converted on two. Both goals are pretty similar, turnover at the blue line and then the race. Czech team is a very average, lacking talent team. But they found kids who were willing to skate hard races when needed, they got rewarded. After seeing how they were willing to sacrifice their bodies Larionov should have made adjustments, get the puck deep, try to cycle low. Instead, all of Russian offense was pathetically concentrated closer to the blue line with a poorly constructed shot with no line open. Another thing is how slow they came out of their own end. It almost looked like their admired their useless passing in their own end. Most of the attacks were developing very slow with enough time for the Czech to regroup and set-up their defense. I think this was a weak Czech team that was solidly prepared and coached. Larionov was just not ready for this development while the team panicked.

How can Larionov not have known how the Czechs will play against Russia? It's pretty obvious, they almost always play like this. They've done it in the first 2 periods, and in the 3rd he came out and did not make any major changes. This is quite alarming.

 

[SoundAndFury]

Does he normally stickhandle and wander out so much?

Yes, that's one of the strongest parts of his game. Frankly, I don't see how can you call it erratic. That's how he plays and is likely encouraged to develop further playing this way. It's not like he's doing it on a whim.

 

[majormajor]

How can Larionov not have known how the Czechs will play against Russia? It's pretty obvious, they almost always play like this. They've done it in the first 2 periods, and in the 3rd he came out and did not make any major changes. This is quite alarming.

In the 3rd period the Russians did start sending forwards into the slot in front of the net. They went from zero to two or three in front. And in any case the Russian D are very poor at slipping pucks through the high shot blockers. All they have to do is flick the puck through and a Russian forward might be able to gather it, but the D kept shooting hard into the shot blockers.

The players this team misses the most are Romanov and Voronkov. But I also wonder if the adjustment to Larionov's system is muting the character of some players: they are all trying to be something they are not.

 

[Yakushev72]

Yes, that's one of the strongest parts of his game. Frankly, I don't see how can you call it erratic. That's how he plays and is likely encouraged to develop further playing this way. It's not like he's doing it on a whim.

In the old days, Russian goalies were told not to handle the puck, which was a big disadvantage that cost them many games. But you have to make the safe play, and you can't make turnovers when your defense is out of position.

 

[RoadWarrior]

Hey, when you hear someone tell you again about soulless, emotionless Soviet robots tell them they have been brainwashed, you can also show them this video. Virtually there is no difference in how we used to celebrate goals.

The Soviet players were strongly discouraged from individual celebrations. Everything was supposed to be for the collective. This was the political philosophy for the entire Soviet Empire that was drilled into them at every stage of life. Religion was banned because it proposed a higher power unrelated to the state power.

Russia is different today as it preaches more nationalism and allows more religious freedoms.

Young people today really have little to no concept of life in the former Soviet Union or eastern block countries.

The fundamental differences with our culture was the collective over the individual, obedience to the state, and free health care and education provided by the state. The latter items were adopted by most countries in the world while collectivization was largely abandoned due to incompatibility with humanity. Forced coercion as it turns out is not particularly effective in maximizing productivity. Obedience to the state was also strictly enforced. Anyone who was critical of government was thrown in jail or sent to a re-education camp. Of course the obvious problem with that system is that it basically eliminated accountability and propagated bad policies leading to more inefficiencies.

The Soviet Union ultimately failed because the system was completely paranoid of western influence and due to inefficiencies such as monopolistic practices and collectivization could not compete economically. The lack of democracy or rule of law was a major problem ultimately leading to revolt.

The “rule of law” is something completely taken for granted in our current culture. British common law which is also used as the basis for both the American and Canadian judicial systems has historically been separated from the legislative branches of government. This is very critical to maintain a functioning society. This effectively means that if a person of influence damages a weaker person then weaker person could still seek relief in the court system and charges could be brought against the person of influence.

In the former Soviet Union there was no rule of law. Obedience to the state was the only criteria of adjudication. If a person of influence abused his or her authority it would be ignored so long as they were propagating state policies.

 

[Juppy61]

Most of these "truisms" about Soviet hockey were formulated after the 1972 Series. The Canadian media had to have an explanation as to why the Soviets, who Canadian media predicted would be annihilated in 8 consecutive games, suddenly found themselves, after Game 5, within one win of annihilating the greatest pros in North America. What was particularly hard to explain, and justify, was how the highest paid players in the world seemed in many ways to be less skilled than these amateurs from the Soviet Union. In 1972, the NHL hockey manual published only 6 words: "Go Red Line, shoot puck in." Period. Having a strategy and system seemed inhuman to NHL fans of the time. NHL games were just an endless repetition of dump and chase. So when the Soviets came in, with their free-flowing passing networks and leaving their skating lanes, it seemed inhuman! Thus, the Soviet players were labeled as machines, not people.

There goes yakushev living in the past again. Same old, every year. Soviet hockey superior to everyone and everything. It’s 2020 bud, time to come back to the real world. I do remember though that our totally outclassed talentless hockey team won that tournament.

 

[Juppy61]

I have extremely low expectations for this year's team and my mind is already on next year.

We'll have real game-breaking talent with Chibrikov, Michkov, Miroshnichenko and Yurov. It's not fun to watch this year's scrubs.

I do think this year's team can medal though.

You have the best goalie by far. Good goaltending can win it all for a decent team. I wouldn’t give up on your team just yet

 

[majormajor]

There goes yakushev living in the past again. Same old, every year. Soviet hockey superior to everyone and everything. It’s 2020 bud, time to come back to the real world. I do remember though that our totally outclassed talentless hockey team won that tournament.

I'm surprised that the Soviets even bothered to play after Clarke deliberately broke Kharlamov's ankle.



That tournament was over at that point.

It also reminds me of this other great moment of Canadian victory. Watch the Soviet backchecker get cut down at the center red line, leaving Lemieux wide open:

 

[BlitzSnipe]

There goes yakushev living in the past again. Same old, every year. Soviet hockey superior to everyone and everything. It’s 2020 bud, time to come back to the real world. I do remember though that our totally outclassed talentless hockey team won that tournament.

Well, at the time, Soviet hockey was recognised as the most skilled, that's true, isn't it? And no one will doubt that Tarasov's system changed the way hockey is played today. The way the Soviet players knew exactly where the partner was etc. is, by today's standards, still a feat, even though that style of play has already crept into the NHL and you see plays and goals of the sort occuring (granted, not every game).

 

[Atas2000]

Well, at the time, Soviet hockey was recognised as the most skilled, that's true, isn't it? And no one will doubt that Tarasov's system changed the way hockey is played today. The way the Soviet players knew exactly where the partner was etc. is, by today's standards, still a feat, even though that style of play has already crept into the NHL and you see plays and goals of the sort occuring (granted, not every game).

It wasn't Tarasov's though. Rather Chernyshov's and Tikhonov's who perfected it.