Hm, I wouldn't say it's only "hussle", Bragin had plenty of teams that weren't too talented but which were very physical and could do just that, hustle well. I think it's more universal and related to overall quickness on the ice and hockey IQ. It's been going a bit downhill. The reasons are on the surface: corruption, blat, etc. Will Russia be able to get out of the slump? Maybe, if we get lucky with the players (eg. 2023) and if we get the right coach (who has credentials as a coach, i.e. not someone like Larionov), a Gold could come by once in a while. To be a contender for Gold every year, e.g. like Canada, Russia would probably need to centralise a lot of its hockey organisation across the country and to introduce clear-cut quality standards that all players have to meet to compete at any level. It would need to make hockey a "state matter", rather than a business. Corruption would have to be removed or at least minimised at all levels.
WJC: 2021 Russia Roster Talk
- Thread starter enj92
- Start date
-
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
Hm, I wouldn't say it's only "hussle", Bragin had plenty of teams that weren't too talented but which were very physical and could do just that, hustle well. I think it's more universal and related to overall quickness on the ice and hockey IQ. It's been going a bit downhill. The reasons are on the surface: corruption, blat, etc. Will Russia be able to get out of the slump? Maybe, if we get lucky with the players (eg. 2023) and if we get the right coach (who has credentials as a coach, i.e. not someone like Larionov), a Gold could come by once in a while. To be a contender for Gold every year, e.g. like Canada, Russia would probably need to centralise a lot of its hockey organisation across the country and to introduce clear-cut quality standards that all players have to meet to compete at any level. It would need to make hockey a "state matter", rather than a business. Corruption would have to be removed or at least minimised at all levels.
That could have some truth to it, or they were had some form of cognitive dissonance caused by the fact that they were taught one thing and in came Larionov with his "patriotic Soviet hockey", which can only work if you have true masters playing it and they're probably just not yet not capable of playing like that and possibly feel overwhelmed. It would be interesting to hear what he was actually saying directly to them, but seeing as though they were taking pucks and shooting them from the blue line which I've never seen WJC Russian teams do with such fervour, I'm not sure if it made any sense. Maybe he's a "zaslanniy kazachek" (sent in agent, for the English speakers) working for Canada/the US to break up the Russian game?No idea.
Whatever it was that Larionov was telling his troops, it fell to the ground with a thud. Trying to hold my biases in check, I honestly did not detect any plan or tactic or strategy that the kids were trying to accomplish. They had no offensive pressure to speak of, which may explain why they scored exactly 3 goals in 3 medal round games. That is an average of one (1) goal per game, which means your only chance to win is to allow no goals in your own net. I think uncertainty breeds tentativeness, which is why, after the USA game, they couldn't mount any scoring pressure, and looked generally disoriented.
Among a number of others, I think you have put your finger on a big problem that works to prevent Russia from winning against some of the best teams. This is my opinion, but I think I am basically correct in saying that in general, Russian teams won't fight as hard and work as hard, and willingly sacrifice their bodies to show national pride. In some matchups, you can reliably count on the opposing teams to outfight, outwork, and scratch and scrape their way to victory over Russia based on motivation, not talent. Two examples of that premise are the Czechs and the Finns. They simply want to beat Russia more than Russia wants to beat them. I speculate that it is the "hate factor." These are countries that have a grudge against Russia over various historical events, and that grudge gives them energy and zeal that Russia almost never matches. I can't prove my premise, but I strongly believe that it is true!
Yep. I don't buy the hate factor, but perhaps it may be used as some kinf of pre-game motivation. Either way Russia was outhustled in all important games this year outside of US game. Add very outdated tactics and the result is very reasonable. Not only that but I have a sense if Germany squeeks in one more in the third period Russia may have been out in the quarters.
Could do what? Russia is not winning anything in the last 10 years. What corruption? Russia has been putting talented teams most of the years. 14 medals in the last 18 years, that is amazing. Just read what I wrote. We need to have all three check marks filled: talent, hustle and tactics. Every year we have talent, we had hustle with Bragin and Varnakov, but we never had right tactics. With Larionov we lost hustle. Corruption is the most useless explanation of what is happening. We just need one or two indivivduals who have enough brains to put this together as ONE working package.
Flameshomer
Likeaholic
I don't mean hate as a literal factor. Russian players have never done anything to warrant being hated by their opponents. I think of it more as a manifestation of historic rivalries that can be the source of motivation. And I definitely think that Bragin's teams played with more emotion and passion than what we saw in the past 2 weeks. The ability to motivate a team should be a trait of a coach, focusing the team on the reasons why an emotional response, even patriotism, is warranted.
Another factor that may enter in is that Russian teams do not usually exhibit a culture of physicality, in my opinion, which means that the opposing team can attack Russia physically without worrying about retaliation. I think being deliberately non-physical is a tactical mistake.
For Russia, I don't consider winning a Bronze Medal to be an accomplishment. I understand why Canada, with its traditions and its vast and comprehensive investment in hockey will likely always be a competitor for the top spot. But I don't understand why it is acceptable to fall behind the USA, Sweden and Finland. Russia has a much larger talent pool than both Sweden and Finland, and the American talent pool is limited to a few Northern States and NHL cities. The vast majority of American regions do not play hockey at all.
I just explained to you that talent is not enough. McDavid as 17 yo - the best player of his generation with his team didn't medal.
You have enough talent? Check mark? Do you have the right tactics? Check Mark? Do you have enough sacrifice? Check mark? You need to find a person who can fill all check marks! This year was the US. Less talented than Canada, the same sacrifice level, but better tactics. That is why they won.
Less than 1% of Russian boys play ice hockey, per the IIHF. There are ~80k u20 boys playing hockey in Russia, and more than 200k American boys playing. It is regional in the United States, but that northern hockey-playing region has maybe 80-100 million people, and compared to Russia there are a lot more middle class families there that can afford the game. I live in a city of 20,000 people in Massachusetts, two hours from Boston. There are at least a couple hundred boys that play in leagues here. The comparable Russian city does not have a rink.
The numbers you are quoting for the United States are for "registered" players, meaning they signed up and joined a youth hockey team, the overwhelming majority at ages 8-13, but probably 98% of those kids never go beyond those youth teams. There is a tier of northern border states (Minnesota, Michigan, Massachusetts) where kids learn to play outdoors, and there is more of a hockey culture there. Yes, New York City has a population of 12 million, but kids don't play hockey there, except in a few wealthy suburbs where they build rinks. The quality of competition is low, so kids rarely advance. The USA gained most hockey prominence from its National Team Development Program, which was actually modeled after Soviet training methods. Sweden and Finland have better quality, but a much smaller talent base. Russia should be able to regularly defeat the USA, Sweden and Finland, but the investment and coaching are insufficient to consistently produce good teams.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Do you mean that the comparable Russian kids are better in some way? More committed or something?
My point was that the U.S. talent pool is much bigger. More than 2% of the players continue through high school, I'd guess 25%-50%. A Massachusetts high school with 900 kids will have a varsity and probably also a junior varsity hockey team. And those that continue playing the longest are usually the better players, so the population of 10 year olds playing is actually very important.
Kids these days rarely play much outdoors. Maybe in Minnesota, but in the Northeast it is rarely cold enough to safely play on ponds. It is a bit above freezing right now, which is typical for a January day in recent years. The last good long freeze here where a lot of people went on to the ponds was in January 2019. Hockey culture really picked up in the Northeast U.S. in the 1970s, because of the Bruins and Bobby Orr. Most towns got rinks in that era and it is the rinks where almost all kids learn.
In the city (8 million) kids rarely play, true. But there are about 10 million in the suburbs and kids there do play, a lot. There are millions that live in "wealthy suburbs". Trevor Zegras is from suburban New York, so is Charlie McAvoy.
I agree but I think you're underestimating how deep the investment has to be to "regularly defeat" the USA. You'd need to multiply the number of amateur players to catch enough talent. You can't regularly defeat a team that has a feeder pool 2.5 times bigger than yours.
Sorry, but I can't buy your analysis, particularly the numbers. Two (2) percent of the USA population is 6.6 million people. Are you saying that 6.6 million Americans are playing on registered junior hockey teams in the United States? That isn't even close to being possible. Hockey is the 5th most popular sport in the United States, behind football, basketball, baseball, and soccer. If 6.6 million Americans were playing on registered junior hockey teams in the United States, they would absolutely crush Canada and all other opposition in all tournaments. Why, they would even be reasonably successful in Senior-level hockey, which they are not (no Olympic Gold Medals in 41 years, no World Championships in 60 years).
The US is predominantly a warm weather country with zero hockey culture, and the vast majority of American kids have never even SEEN a pair of skates, except on TV or on the internet. I have a close friend who lives in the Dallas area, who tells me that the Dallas-Ft. Worth metropolitan area has the highest concentration of indoor hockey rinks south of Minnesota (something like 32 rinks, serving a population of almost 8 million) in the United States. But he said that all of the rinks are located in the rich suburbs north of Dallas, targeting rich white kids whose parents migrated from northern states. It is very expensive, and requires extensive daily involvement of parents to play at these rinks. More than half were built by the Dallas Stars themselves, to promote hockey in an otherwise hockey-less region. This is apparently true in other Southern locations that have NHL franchises, but the list of high quality NHL players who originate from tropical climates can be counted on two hands.
In Russia, where much housing is in apartments, many apartment lots have "yard rinks," areas that are flooded in the winter so that kids can skate. It isn't fancy, but it does provide for a lot of fun and the building of a hockey culture.
You misunderstand me. You suggested that 98% of American kids that play ice hockey stop playing at the 8-13 level, and that is far too low a number. I used the example of the high school having two teams to show that it is a larger proportion than that. Obviously 2% of the entire country's population doesn't play.
Enough with the business about tropical climates. You can cut out that entire part of the country and just focus on the northern tier of states. That is still ~80 million people, and within that region a much higher proportion of boys play organized ice hockey than they do in Russia where it is only 1% of 5-20 year old boys that play. Are you disputing the IIHF numbers? They have ~80k Russian U20 players, and more than 200k American U20 players. I'm not entirely sure what is being argued here, those numbers are either correct and the United States has a much larger player base, or they are incorrect and biased in some way. But pointing out regions of the United States where people don't play hockey is meaningless. If Canada annexed Brazil, would they be a worse hockey nation? No they would be exactly the same!
You're missing some key top prospects : Yurov, Michkov. Also there is Didkovsky , Kisakov, Aimurzin, Katelevsky
Michkov is quite young but I guess it's possible. As for the others it remains to be seen if they are better than guys like Trineyev, Zlodeyev, Svechkov, etc
Too many people from this year ... Mukhamadullin, Kuznetsov, Chayka ...defensemen seem pretty bad. The potential's probably not too high, who's going to be doing the scoring? Askarov as goalie again ... meh.
Michkov is the reason why Larionov accepted this job imo. He will be there 100% if he's healthy.
Right, and Larionov has also shown how great he is at squeezing the best out of his players. I hope that these players' talents don't go to waste because of Larionov's nonexistent coaching ability.
At least Michkov will have two more years if Larionov fails.
His contract is for two years so he doesn't need a confirmation I guess. He wasn't fired.
Last edited:
Ok, so Larionov is staying for the next year. Lots of Russian sports website posted a poll if Larionov should stay or should not stay. I think the question is Can Larionov win next year or not. To me the answer is very simple. Can he collect a roster that can win Gold next year. My answer is a yes. Can he have the right tactics to win the next year - that answer is a no. Can he prepare the kids to sacrifice for 6 games enough to win the Gold - my answer is a double no.
To break this all down:
1. Larionov did not show me in any of the games that he has any right ideas to build any sort of winning tactics. Everything, and I mean everything he did was wrong. Zone entry, passing game, no cycle, shot selection, line combinations, everything else you can name was weak. I did not see anything positive from any of the games. The worst thing is his offense was horrible. Shutout 2 times, 3 goals in 3 sudden death games, more goals that were scored by Russia appear flukey to me, no dirt goals, no goals with the screens properly setup, I believe only one goal of a deflection. It was all wrong. How can he turn this around in one year? Impossible!
2. Sacrifice level (or hustle) - I literally think the hustle level was probably the lowest ever. I do not remember team Russia that had such a low level of sacrifice in many years. Good example the game against team Sweden. Sweden scored in the last minute with their net being empty. You were supposed to have 5 players on the ice that were willing to sacrifice themselves? Where was that block that was needed, Igor? Remember 26 blocks by Czechs? That is sacrifice. Of coutse you can't sacrifice if you are telling your players the game should be fun. Unless he turns his own philosophy 180 degrees it is impossible to get the sacrifice and hustle level to the level of Canadians, Americans and Finns (even Czechs now).
I am totally expecting next year to be another failure. We will have years before FHR will be able to find this one person who is smart that needs to be behind the bench.
To break this all down:
1. Larionov did not show me in any of the games that he has any right ideas to build any sort of winning tactics. Everything, and I mean everything he did was wrong. Zone entry, passing game, no cycle, shot selection, line combinations, everything else you can name was weak. I did not see anything positive from any of the games. The worst thing is his offense was horrible. Shutout 2 times, 3 goals in 3 sudden death games, more goals that were scored by Russia appear flukey to me, no dirt goals, no goals with the screens properly setup, I believe only one goal of a deflection. It was all wrong. How can he turn this around in one year? Impossible!
2. Sacrifice level (or hustle) - I literally think the hustle level was probably the lowest ever. I do not remember team Russia that had such a low level of sacrifice in many years. Good example the game against team Sweden. Sweden scored in the last minute with their net being empty. You were supposed to have 5 players on the ice that were willing to sacrifice themselves? Where was that block that was needed, Igor? Remember 26 blocks by Czechs? That is sacrifice. Of coutse you can't sacrifice if you are telling your players the game should be fun. Unless he turns his own philosophy 180 degrees it is impossible to get the sacrifice and hustle level to the level of Canadians, Americans and Finns (even Czechs now).
I am totally expecting next year to be another failure. We will have years before FHR will be able to find this one person who is smart that needs to be behind the bench.
He'll probably be let go if he fails again, albeit probably having some Odes sung to him in the process, but whatever. As long as he leaves.
Regarding VVP's jugdment of Larionov, I agree. The most probable scenario for next year is yet another flop, with Russia losing either in the semis or the quarters. Better perhaps in the Quarters, then Larionov will be let go. You're right, I have seen nothing resembling tactics or a "purpose" in Team Russia's game, it was like "na avos'". If you looked at other teams, you could tell they were following some sort of tactic in order to beat Team Russia, whereas with Russia, they always played using the same flawed strategy, hoping each time that it would work, that the rifle would shoot. But it didn't, because having no strategy is not a proper strategy. Canada used hardcore forechecking as their strategy and it worked wonders vs. Russia. Could Russia have countered that? Yes, of course. But I saw nothing in the way of strategy to do so. Finland is another example. They saw that they could just put two forwards next to Askarov and the puck will go in. What do they do next? Right, the same damn thing! And they have two goals and the game is over with that uncreative and idealess offence Russia had. Add to that the fact that Larionov did not tell the boys to be much more active when playing vs. these forwards.
Larionov seemed to have no "gameplan" before each of the games and made no adjustments as the games progressed, did not react to the events happening directly on the ice. This caused disarray and one of the poorest (if not poorest) WJC showings from Russia that I have seen.
Last edited:
