WJC: 2021 Russia Roster Talk

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Seeing as though Russia has been going downhill in pretty much all areas (except billionaries, corruption, etc.), I guess one cannot expect more. Larionov is a winemaker (and a former great hockey player), but certainly not a hockey coach. Most hockey officials are corrupt and do not understand the game. The whole system just isn't working, many Russian parents simply can't afford to have their kids play, I've also heard that "blat" and corruption is relatively widespread in roster selection. The old Soviet days of dominance are gone, as is the ideology and the social system that made the former success possible. I would not be surprised if this trend of poor showings continues, to be honest, under the given circumstances. The system in Russia has to change in order for hockey to get better, imo.

Could Larionov be Rotenberg's Rottweiller? Sorry, bad try! It kind of rhymes, but it doesn't fit, because Rottweiler's are actually pretty macho dogs, and Larionov's puppies looked anything but macho against their "trainers" from Canada.

In the West, there is a well-worn cliche that if something is produced in Russia, it must be of poor quality (vodka excepted, of course). Some of it is no doubt prompted by anti-communist ideology from the past, but it is all based on the premise that the average person in Russia has little or no incentive to produce high quality products and services, and that the means of production are too shabby and substandard to make high quality products possible. That may or may not be fair, but when these cliches live on for decades without being credibly disproven, they come to be popularly accepted as established fact. Aside from substances extracted from the ground (oil, gas, minerals), there are few exceptions to the premise.

What was so great about the Soviet hockey created by Tarasov and his associates was that it was a clear exception to that premise. In the rough and tough world of hockey, it was a thing of almost artistic and elegant beauty to watch and behold, almost like the Bolshoi. It soared to the top of the world at a time when other Soviet enterprises were just barely surviving. Sadly, it seems to me that those traditions are near-death, and my hopes of seeing them resuscitated are gone. Russian sport overall, and hockey in particular (since it was among the most noteworthy achievements of Soviet sport), are now languishing in mediocrity, with no sign of any initiative to make them competitive on a world stage. Nothing special, just average. Today, the Russian junior team, a group of really good kids that seem to have a lot of talent, will compete in a kind of "losers derby" for 3rd place (what a ridiculous money-making scheme it is to award Bronze medals, as if it were the Olympics, to squeeze more revenue out of a kids tournament). The tiny country of Finland will challenge the behemoth-sized Russia on even terms, and even have a good chance of winning. That says everything that needs to be said about the status of Russian hockey.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlitzSnipe
Russia will be better next year and Canada is bound to be worse. Russia had a young team this year.

Russia is a great hockey nation with a high compete level every year.

I doubt I’m the only Canadian that was having flashbacks (2011?)before that offside (hate that ruling) disallowed their PP goal.

I’m always on the edge of my seat when Canada and Russia play.
 
My quick summary of Larionov's failures:

1. Inability to create legit first and second lines. Podkolzin's teammates were all wrong for him. Biggest mistake was not to split Podkolzin and Khusnutdinov. They just didn't work together. It was obvious in the Czech game and immediate action was needed, probably in the middle of the second period I would switch them. Podkolzin being the passer first needed a big body who could into the paint. I would try him with Safonov (205 lbs vs 165 lbs of Khusnutdinov) or even Abramov (185). First line just felt light and they could never establish presense in the offensive zone consistently.

2. Khusnutdinov is a skilled guy but he should have been on the third line with two larger wingers. That could allow him to carry the play for most of the possessions, he actually was good at that.

3. Picking not enough players with right hand shots. I think Larionov had no idea until Canadians told him that he only has two. That put the team at a disadvantage assembling the lines.

4. Slow developing offense. Too many short passes in your own zone and as a result very slow transitions. I know this is old Soviet school to regroup and start an attack but times are different. Players are just bigger with longer reach, better skaters, speeds are higher.

5. Inability to get to the paint. When picking players you have to take this into consideration. There were no set plays nor players who wanted to to get in there consistently and as a result the team had low number of shots from there.

6. Fun is a "wrong" thing when it comes to modern hockey. I have been involved in training of young kids starting from the very young age and there (in my opinion) should not be such a thing as a fun during high level games. Kids get their fun when they celebrate their own hard work after the games and esssentially they get rewarded for it, some with large contracts.

7. Plan B and Plan C should be prepared for any game. Obviously you do the scouting on your opponent (team as a whole and all individuals separately) so you are ready for any turn of events. Things change quickly in hockey and quick decisions are needed.

8. Ability to analize where the game is going. I do not think Larionov has that based on the losses in this tournament and it is kind of like peripheral vision, either you have it or you do not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlitzSnipe


This is hyperbole but not by much.

Podkolzin would make it, and play a checking role on Team Canada.
Askarov would make the team on pedigree, but he'd lose the starter job to Levi if things unfold as they did.
Amirov? Chinakhov? Well Seth Jarvis didn't even make Team Canada, so those two and any other forwards would definitely not make it.
None of the D would be even close, there are possibly 15 better Canadian D.

He should be despondent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Porter Stoutheart
This is hyperbole but not by much.

Podkolzin would make it, and play a checking role on Team Canada.
Askarov would make the team on pedigree, but he'd lose the starter job to Levi if things unfold as they did.
Amirov? Chinakhov? Well Seth Jarvis didn't even make Team Canada, so those two and any other forwards would definitely not make it.
None of the D would be even close, there are possibly 15 better Canadian D.

He should be despondent.

This is kind of ridiculous to talk about this. Teams are built with some ideas in mind. Some Russian players would make team Canada and many Canadians wouldn't make team Russia. It is possible that this team Russian will have 4 to 5 NHL regulars at the end of the day and 8 to 10 players from team Canada never become regular NHL players even though they have home advantage. So what is the point of such conversations? It is for people who do not understand modern hockey.
 
This is kind of ridiculous to talk about this. Teams are built with some ideas in mind. Some Russian players would make team Canada and many Canadians wouldn't make team Russia. It is possible that this team Russian will have 4 to 5 NHL regulars at the end of the day and 8 to 10 players from team Canada never become regular NHL players even though they have home advantage. So what is the point of such conversations? It is for people who do not understand modern hockey.

Other than the goalies, name one player.

You're probably right about the ultimate number of NHLers to come from them, but they wanted to win this tournament, and right now there is a discrepancy. I don't think there are greatly different ideas about assembling teams. You would think if Larionov had some special idea about which players he wanted, that he would have picked more players that can pass the puck. This Canadian team could more easily play Soviet Hockey than the Russians could.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlitzSnipe
Other than the goalies, name one player.

You're probably right about the ultimate number of NHLers to come from them, but they wanted to win this tournament, and right now there is a discrepancy. I don't think there are greatly different ideas about assembling teams. You would think if Larionov had some special idea about which players he wanted, that he would have picked more players that can pass the puck. This Canadian team could more easily play Soviet Hockey than the Russians could.

In all honesty, Canada's team play is its strength. There are about 10 to 12 players on team Canada who I thought the only skill is great hustle. They definitely do not make as the NHL regulars and likely do not make team Russia. But again, this conversation is useless because the teams are looking for different qualities.
 
Amirov? Chinakhov? Well Seth Jarvis didn't even make Team Canada, so those two and any other forwards would definitely not make it.

I usually like your posts but this is a strange statement. Very certain about a hypothetical. I would've put Jarvis on Canada but his game is not really similar to Amirov/Chinakhov so I don't follow the logic.
 
In all honesty, Canada's team play is its strength. There are about 10 to 12 players on team Canada who I thought the only skill is great hustle. They definitely do not make as the NHL regulars and likely do not make team Russia. But again, this conversation is useless because the teams are looking for different qualities.

Some of Team Canada's forwards won't make the NHL, right. But they're all NHL first rounders. Individually I would not pick one and say "you probably won't make it". It's greater than 50% chance for each of them to make it, perhaps excepting Zary.

I usually like your posts but this is a strange statement. Very certain about a hypothetical. I would've put Jarvis on Canada but his game is not really similar to Amirov/Chinakhov so I don't follow the logic.

It's true it's just a hypothetical. But I watched Canada's selection camp and I think the same thing would happen to Amirov that happened to Jarvis. He's a skilled enough player but if you already have half a dozen guys that the puck runs through, and you need someone to complement that with strength or shot, then that isn't the type of player you need. Amirov is definitely more skilled than several of the Canadian forwards, I just don't think he would make the team. Chinakhov is a very good forecheck/backcheck guy and faster, so I take it back, I think he would make it even though he is more raw in carrying the puck.
 
My quick summary of Larionov's failures:

1. Inability to create legit first and second lines. Podkolzin's teammates were all wrong for him. Biggest mistake was not to split Podkolzin and Khusnutdinov. They just didn't work together. It was obvious in the Czech game and immediate action was needed, probably in the middle of the second period I would switch them. Podkolzin being the passer first needed a big body who could into the paint. I would try him with Safonov (205 lbs vs 165 lbs of Khusnutdinov) or even Abramov (185). First line just felt light and they could never establish presense in the offensive zone consistently.

2. Khusnutdinov is a skilled guy but he should have been on the third line with two larger wingers. That could allow him to carry the play for most of the possessions, he actually was good at that.

3. Picking not enough players with right hand shots. I think Larionov had no idea until Canadians told him that he only has two. That put the team at a disadvantage assembling the lines.

4. Slow developing offense. Too many short passes in your own zone and as a result very slow transitions. I know this is old Soviet school to regroup and start an attack but times are different. Players are just bigger with longer reach, better skaters, speeds are higher.

5. Inability to get to the paint. When picking players you have to take this into consideration. There were no set plays nor players who wanted to to get in there consistently and as a result the team had low number of shots from there.

6. Fun is a "wrong" thing when it comes to modern hockey. I have been involved in training of young kids starting from the very young age and there (in my opinion) should not be such a thing as a fun during high level games. Kids get their fun when they celebrate their own hard work after the games and esssentially they get rewarded for it, some with large contracts.

7. Plan B and Plan C should be prepared for any game. Obviously you do the scouting on your opponent (team as a whole and all individuals separately) so you are ready for any turn of events. Things change quickly in hockey and quick decisions are needed.

8. Ability to analize where the game is going. I do not think Larionov has that based on the losses in this tournament and it is kind of like peripheral vision, either you have it or you do not.

I applaud your excellent analysis. Larionov made mistakes galore, and in so doing, deprived the players of feeling good about a better showing, and deprived fans of the pride that comes from watching your team excel.

I would only disagree that the constant backward passes and stalling momentum in their own defensive zone was something he picked up from the Soviet system. It is true that the Soviet school used the backward pass as a method of getting organized during line changes, and that that was considered unique at the time, but the Soviet system itself was all-out relentless attack - no loitering in the defensive zone allowed. Tarasov relentlessly exhorting his team to skate as fast possible toward the goal to open positions where they could receive a pass. The guy who didn't have the puck was the guy who was expected to be on the move. That is the exact opposite of the standstill, no forward momentum system that Larionov has the kids using!
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlitzSnipe
I applaud your excellent analysis. Larionov made mistakes galore, and in so doing, deprived the players of feeling good about a better showing, and deprived fans of the pride that comes from watching your team excel.

I would only disagree that the constant backward passes and stalling momentum in their own defensive zone was something he picked up from the Soviet system. It is true that the Soviet school used the backward pass as a method of getting organized during line changes, and that that was considered unique at the time, but the Soviet system itself was all-out relentless attack - no loitering in the defensive zone allowed. Tarasov relentlessly exhorting his team to skate as fast possible toward the goal to open positions where they could receive a pass. The guy who didn't have the puck was the guy who was expected to be on the move. That is the exact opposite of the standstill, no forward momentum system that Larionov has the kids using!

I wasn't talking about backward passing, I was talking specifically about numerous useless passes in their own end which I am assuming the team was using to buy time for the whole line to be set in their places. This idea to me is irrational because spending 5 to 15 extra seconds setting your team for an attack is ridiculously stupid. The shifts are 45 to 55 seconds and when you have 200 lbs 18 yo players it is a waste of energy. That will never work at high level nowdays. Backward passes I do not mind if they are utilized properly. The whole tournament I saw team Russia to do it right perhpas two to three times. This is actually a great modern tool but you need proper skills to do it.
 
I wasn't talking about backward passing, I was talking specifically about numerous useless passes in their own end which I am assuming the team was using to buy time for the whole line to be set in their places. This idea to me is irrational because spending 5 to 15 extra seconds setting your team for an attack is ridiculously stupid. The shifts are 45 to 55 seconds and when you have 200 lbs 18 yo players it is a waste of energy. That will never work at high level nowdays. Backward passes I do not mind if they are utilized properly. The whole tournament I saw team Russia to do it right perhpas two to three times. This is actually a great modern tool but you need proper skills to do it.

Agreed. I objected to Larionov's attempt before the tournament started to equate his failed system to the Soviet school that won so many Olympic and World Championships. There is no similarity that I see.
 


So my particular take on this is that Russia starts with a pretty big disadvantage before you even get to the higher echelons of youth development. I'll let Russians correct my work here.

Per the IIHF there are about 80k youth hockey players in all of Russia. That's despite having about ~10 million boys between the ages of 5 and 16. Canada has ~430k U20 players, the States about 205k. Someone can tell me if this is plausible for Russia. I did see that IIHF had older data that was disputed but 80k is also what Tretiak mentioned in an interview a while back.

I can't imagine that there is anything you can do in terms of training with 16-19 year olds to overcome that discrepancy. Obviously it would be good for winning tournaments if Russia could get more than 1% of its boys to play hockey, and probably a good use of money for social purposes in general. Many boys can be kept in the game if they get more help with equipment and fees. Think of the efforts Artemi Panarin had to go to to play hockey as a boy - playing with shoes inside his skates, with duct tape gloves, etc.. . Obviously Russia is in a better condition than when he was a boy, but there are still probably other kids with incredible raw talent that are now giving up the game because they can't afford it. If I'm Fetisov that is where I'm putting my energy.
 
Canadian numbers are impossible to overcome, not in the next 40 years or so. Russia needs to have 1000 more indor rinks to have ability to create somewhat similar amount of players. I know both Canadian and Russian hockey systems well and while I know that Canadian system is really poor when it comes to minor hockey there is an ability of Canadian hockey to have this natural selection from a much higher number of athletes. Cuzins (spelling) for example comes from a small town that is as far as I know is not a hockey bed. But having enough ice allowed him to get involved in hockey and him being a natural freak of nature as well as a guy with seemingly great hockey IQ this natural selection is something Russia hardly can beat with the current numbers. What Russia is great at is even having much smaller number of players - still being able to consistently create elite hockey players.
 
Canadian numbers are impossible to overcome, not in the next 40 years or so. Russia needs to have 1000 more indor rinks to have ability to create somewhat similar amount of players. I know both Canadian and Russian hockey systems well and while I know that Canadian system is really poor when it comes to minor hockey there is an ability of Canadian hockey to have this natural selection from a much higher number of athletes. Cuzins (spelling) for example comes from a small town that is as far as I know is not a hockey bed. But having enough ice allowed him to get involved in hockey and him being a natural freak of nature as well as a guy with seemingly great hockey IQ this natural selection is something Russia hardly can beat with the current numbers. What Russia is great at is even having much smaller number of players - still being able to consistently create elite hockey players.

I would agree with that - Russian skill development is remarkable given how few players they have to begin with. I would hope that Fetisov in his desperation doesn't try to fix what is not broken.

I have something I'm curious about - perhaps birthplaces are reported differently in Russia, but I've noticed that almost all of the players are coming from large cities. Like it is surprising to me when I see that Voronkov is from Angarsk, which is only ~200k people, because everyone else is from a bigger city. In Canada we have hockey rinks in every town, whether they have ~10k people or ~100k, and occasionally players like Cozens come from those small places. It is actually becoming a rarity in Canada though because those smaller places don't get advanced skills training. It used to be that a disproportionate number of players came from small prairie towns, like Gordie Howe did. Now they disproportionately come from Toronto, because you need to be there and have a lot of money in order to hire skills coaches. For instance in my home province of Nova Scotia, we have Mackinnon, Crosby, and Marchand from Halifax, where half the population lives, while the players from the rest of the province are incapable of winning a tournament at any level. Russia needs to add more rinks but expanding skills training to cover that area is a whole other problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlitzSnipe
Russia's problem was always lack of hockey infrastructure outside of several cities. But my experience is that the best Russian players come from the poorest regions where there is very little ice. If you take places like Tyumen region (Vasilevsky was born there) there was no indoor ice in most cities with population around 100,000 people. Now it is changing but still we are years away from some sort of saturation. Imagine 3 or 4 ice rinks in a city with 150k people, that alone will give you enough penetration to naturally select from insane amount of potential athletes.
 
Russia's problem was always lack of hockey infrastructure outside of several cities. But my experience is that the best Russian players come from the poorest regions where there is very little ice. If you take places like Tyumen region (Vasilevsky was born there) there was no indoor ice in most cities with population around 100,000 people. Now it is changing but still we are years away from some sort of saturation. Imagine 3 or 4 ice rinks in a city with 150k people, that alone will give you enough penetration to naturally select from insane amount of potential athletes.

Believe me I've noticed as a Blue Jackets fan that many of my favorite Russians have been coming from the East:

Bobrovsky - Novokuznetsk
Panarin - Chelyabinsk
Voronkov - Angarsk
Tarasov - Novokuznetsk
Marchenko - Barnaul
Chinakhov - Omsk

I would say there is something wrong with the character of European Russians but Gavrikov is too good and hardworking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VVP
Work is the basis of all real wealth, of course. But that is not at stake here, unless you think Muscovites work three times as hard as others?

There is a useful insight from one of the Panarin interviews, I can't remember from which Russian magazine. They asked him why he wanted to leave Columbus, and the interviewer assumed it was some poor regional backwater. He had to correct them and say "no, it is actually a very nice city with middle-class people, nice schools and public amenities", and he told them that "unlike in Russia, big and medium sized cities in North America are almost all the same in terms of standard of living" (my paraphrase).

The difference between Russia and N.A. in the regional income distributions comes from the difference in the way money is recycled from the central government and the outer parts. In Russia the two leading cities have hoarded wealth ever since Czarist times. In N.A. the tax money is recycled back into the economy in a more even way. Local politicians have actual power to force funding for their priorities, because control of the central government is always contested.

Come on, let's stop this political discussion. US has been building wealth for centuries. Russia was pretty much in ruins 25 years ago. Let's end it right here.
 
Could Larionov be Rotenberg's Rottweiller? Sorry, bad try! It kind of rhymes, but it doesn't fit, because Rottweiler's are actually pretty macho dogs, and Larionov's puppies looked anything but macho against their "trainers" from Canada.

In the West, there is a well-worn cliche that if something is produced in Russia, it must be of poor quality (vodka excepted, of course). Some of it is no doubt prompted by anti-communist ideology from the past, but it is all based on the premise that the average person in Russia has little or no incentive to produce high quality products and services, and that the means of production are too shabby and substandard to make high quality products possible. That may or may not be fair, but when these cliches live on for decades without being credibly disproven, they come to be popularly accepted as established fact. Aside from substances extracted from the ground (oil, gas, minerals), there are few exceptions to the premise.

What was so great about the Soviet hockey created by Tarasov and his associates was that it was a clear exception to that premise. In the rough and tough world of hockey, it was a thing of almost artistic and elegant beauty to watch and behold, almost like the Bolshoi. It soared to the top of the world at a time when other Soviet enterprises were just barely surviving. Sadly, it seems to me that those traditions are near-death, and my hopes of seeing them resuscitated are gone. Russian sport overall, and hockey in particular (since it was among the most noteworthy achievements of Soviet sport), are now languishing in mediocrity, with no sign of any initiative to make them competitive on a world stage. Nothing special, just average. Today, the Russian junior team, a group of really good kids that seem to have a lot of talent, will compete in a kind of "losers derby" for 3rd place (what a ridiculous money-making scheme it is to award Bronze medals, as if it were the Olympics, to squeeze more revenue out of a kids tournament). The tiny country of Finland will challenge the behemoth-sized Russia on even terms, and even have a good chance of winning. That says everything that needs to be said about the status of Russian hockey.

Without getting into geopolitics, disagree with your characterization of the bronze medal game as the "loser derby". Often the bronze medal team is better than the silver medal winner - who had the good fortune of playing the champion one day later but then gets trounced in the final.
 
Come on, let's stop this political discussion. US has been building wealth for centuries. Russia was pretty much in ruins 25 years ago. Let's end it right here.

I think there has been a bit of a misunderstanding here. When you see you need to build real wealth - factories, roads, infrastructure, etc... That is the same as my agenda. The point is that those big investments have to be made across the country, similar to the argument about hockey investment. Build more rinks in the regions. It is not about handouts, it is about investment.
 
I think there has been a bit of a misunderstanding here. When you see you need to build real wealth - factories, roads, infrastructure, etc... That is the same as my agenda. The point is that those big investments have to be made across the country, similar to the argument about hockey investment. Build more rinks in the regions. It is not about handouts, it is about investment.

They are. There is an insane amount of factories built in the last 10 years, same with indoor rinks. Russia may have had similar construction pace only under Iosif Vissarionovich. I have seen the stats on the new facilities, it is really impressive.
 
Could Larionov be Rotenberg's Rottweiller? Sorry, bad try! It kind of rhymes, but it doesn't fit, because Rottweiler's are actually pretty macho dogs, and Larionov's puppies looked anything but macho against their "trainers" from Canada.

In the West, there is a well-worn cliche that if something is produced in Russia, it must be of poor quality (vodka excepted, of course). Some of it is no doubt prompted by anti-communist ideology from the past, but it is all based on the premise that the average person in Russia has little or no incentive to produce high quality products and services, and that the means of production are too shabby and substandard to make high quality products possible. That may or may not be fair, but when these cliches live on for decades without being credibly disproven, they come to be popularly accepted as established fact. Aside from substances extracted from the ground (oil, gas, minerals), there are few exceptions to the premise.

What was so great about the Soviet hockey created by Tarasov and his associates was that it was a clear exception to that premise. In the rough and tough world of hockey, it was a thing of almost artistic and elegant beauty to watch and behold, almost like the Bolshoi. It soared to the top of the world at a time when other Soviet enterprises were just barely surviving. Sadly, it seems to me that those traditions are near-death, and my hopes of seeing them resuscitated are gone. Russian sport overall, and hockey in particular (since it was among the most noteworthy achievements of Soviet sport), are now languishing in mediocrity, with no sign of any initiative to make them competitive on a world stage. Nothing special, just average. Today, the Russian junior team, a group of really good kids that seem to have a lot of talent, will compete in a kind of "losers derby" for 3rd place (what a ridiculous money-making scheme it is to award Bronze medals, as if it were the Olympics, to squeeze more revenue out of a kids tournament). The tiny country of Finland will challenge the behemoth-sized Russia on even terms, and even have a good chance of winning. That says everything that needs to be said about the status of Russian hockey.
I must say, that Vodka is good!!Love it!!
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad