Bobby Hull

[Hanji]

Bobby Hull was one of the strongest in the game, in his era,

Never said he wasn't.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

The comment was in regard to the "late" 80s, not the 80s as a whole. There's a difference. The early-80s had (on average) very young players and very poorly structured defence, but defence was better and players older by the late 80s. I would guess parity was stronger in the late 80s, too.

That's good framing imo. Has the same idea been applied to the 70s and is the generalization the same there or stronger/weaker?

In the left corner we have the Summit Series in the right we have the 1979 Challenge Cup debacle. We know that things changed big time after 72, but the 79 result makes me wonder how much we had taken to heart by the end of the decade (even though 79 was not a true bestie).

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

That's good framing imo. Has the same idea been applied to the 70s and is the generalization the same there or stronger/weaker?

In the left corner we have the Summit Series in the right we have the 1979 Challenge Cup debacle. We know that things changed big time after 72, but the 79 result makes me wonder how much we had taken to heart by the end of the decade (even though 79 was not a true bestie).

And the Soviets crushed the Canadians in the 1981 Canada Cup final, 8-1.

Perhaps the Soviet teams were simply better than the Canadian all-star teams.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

And the Soviets crushed the Canadians in the 1981 Canada Cup final, 8-1.

Perhaps the Soviet teams were simply better than the Canadian all-star teams.

I remember that being the feeling around that time. Do you concur?

 

[Mike C]

They don't say otherwise. Fewer goals scored doesn't mean better defense. It just means there are fewer goals being scored. It can mean weaker offense.

To put it differently, goals for and goals against are the same statistic, from different perspectives.

Offense and defense can both improve at the same time, which is what happened in the 1980s. But you can't have both more goals scored and fewer goals against, because they are the same thing.

There you go with that common sense stuff again!

 

[Mike C]

I'm surprised by the separation you note here. I was so blown away by Orr that I never gave Espo the credit he deserved until after the Summit Series. Best performance ever imo.

Esposito put up nice numbers on the Rangers with 3 backliners in their early 20s (McEwen, Maloney and Greschner), and Ed freaking Hospodar feeding the puck. Esposito is an all time great and highly underrated impact player not only of his era but any other era

 

[The Panther]

And the Soviets crushed the Canadians in the 1981 Canada Cup final, 8-1.

Perhaps the Soviet teams were simply better than the Canadian all-star teams.

And perhaps the Soviets' best weren't as good as a ragtag group of US college students 19 months earlier.

Canada has clearly had superior players and rosters, overall, in the history between these nations. My guess would be that the Soviets' all-star team peaked around 1979-1981 (save for that embarrassing 1980 Olympic loss), and, as we all know, any weird thing can happen in hockey in one game. For example, a week before the Soviets' 8-1 win over Canada, they lost 7-3 to... Canada.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I remember that being the feeling around that time. Do you concur?

Yep.

They played a different game. Clearly they were better skaters and appeared to be more of a team.

 

[The Panther]

They played a different game. Clearly they were better skaters and appeared to be more of a team.

They may indeed have been better skaters and of course they were more of a team. Being a team, 12 months a year, was their job.

But appearances can be deceiving. Team Canada usually won.

 

[Hanji]

They may indeed have been better skaters and of course they were more of a team. Being a team, 12 months a year, was their job.

But appearances can be deceiving. Team Canada usually won.

But you just said anything weird can happen in one game. One game is the difference between the 2 nations, if we include all games both nations had their best on the ice. 72 Summit Series, 81, 84, 87 Canada Cup, 79 Challenge Cup.
There really wasn't any separation between Canada and the Soviets.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

But you just said anything weird can happen in one game. One game is the difference between the 2 nations, if we include all games both nations had their best on the ice. 72 Summit Series, 81, 84, 87 Canada Cup, 79 Challenge Cup.
There really wasn't any separation between Canada and the Soviets.

In my mind the Soviets won the Summit Series.

 

[Golden_Jet]

In my mind the Soviets won the Summit Series.

Huh, why is that.

 

[Hanji]

In my mind the Soviets won the Summit Series.

I can see that from a holistic standpoint. The Summit Series was the moment Canada lost sole possession over their own game and ceased being the exclusive global superpower. Game 1 was when the Soviets changed international hockey forever.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

Yep.

They played a different game. Clearly they were better skaters and appeared to be more of a team.

In the 1970s arc, how would 1976 fit in? In 72 we are forced to adapt fast. Late 70s a lot of people think the Soviets have the edge. Do you think they carried that for the whole decade or that we maybe regressed after 76?

They may indeed have been better skaters and of course they were more of a team. Being a team, 12 months a year, was their job.

But appearances can be deceiving. Team Canada usually won.

This is why besties are the only tournaments that matter to me, but with three game finals as a minumum. I suppose the economics no longer supports a deep dive tournament, but I'd love to see one. A proper bestie.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Huh, why is that.

It was a series that was seen going in as the best in the world against a bunch of nobodies.

Seemed designed to simply embarrass the evil commies. No one in the hockey community outside of Russia felt the Soviets would win a game. But the Soviets knew they were ready.

All the excuses came out afterwards but the fact of the matter was that the Soviets were the better team for most of the tournament. In subsequent matchups it was clear the Summit Series wasn't a fluke.

They played a different way, they trained a different way. The series did a lot to advance the way some coaches thought about the game. A new view of the game was evolving because of it.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

In the 1970s arc, how would 1976 fit in? In 72 we are forced to adapt fast. Late 70s a lot of people think the Soviets have the edge. Do you think they carried that for the whole decade or that we maybe regressed after 76?


This is why besties are the only tournaments that matter to me, but with three game finals as a minumum. I suppose the economics no longer supports a deep dive tournament, but I'd love to see one. A proper bestie.

Seems the Soviet hockey program was in turmoil in 1976. Claims they didn't bring all of their best players, brought a young team. No Petrov or Mikhailov or Kharlamov. They didn't even get to the finals.

 

[Golden_Jet]

It was a series that was seen going in as the best in the world against a bunch of nobodies.

Seemed designed to simply embarrass the evil commies. No one in the hockey community outside of Russia felt the Soviets would win a game. But the Soviets knew they were ready.

All the excuses came out afterwards but the fact of the matter was that the Soviets were the better team for most of the tournament. In subsequent matchups it was clear the Summit Series wasn't a fluke.

They played a different way, they trained a different way. The series did a lot to advance the way some coaches thought about the game. A new view of the game was evolving because of it.

A lot of that was true.
some pre scouts warned Canada how good the soviets were, but that was ignored.

I’ll go by who won the actual series though.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

A lot of that was true.
some pre scouts warned Canada how good the soviets were, but that was ignored.

I’ll go by who won the actual series though.

An aside, I've brought this up before, but a big shocker for me came just a few years ago, when I realized that TC74 should have had a chance to play for a tie in the 74 series. Three seconds were bled from the clock in Game 7 and the WHA team appears to have scored uring that time.
The win loss tie line is so not evident of how that series turned out to be.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

Seems the Soviet hockey program was in turmoil in 1976. Claims they didn't bring all of their best players, brought a young team. No Petrov or Mikhailov or Kharlamov. They didn't even get to the finals.

I give them zero credit for not bringing their best players. The Soviets had everything to lose by endorsing the bestie concept.

Nonetheless, awesome players. I guess there can never ever be another Game One. Most extraordinary. By the time Henderson got his second goal I knew we were facing a real team.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

I can see that from a holistic standpoint. The Summit Series was the moment Canada lost sole possession over their own game and ceased being the exclusive global superpower. Game 1 was when the Soviets changed international hockey forever.

Did you see the game? It was awesome, knowing that a tectconic shift was unfolding live and one so contrary to such high expectations. It was indeed amazing.

 

[Staniowski]

Did you see the game? It was awesome, knowing that a tectconic shift was unfolding live and one so contrary to such high expectations. It was indeed amazing.

The most important hockey game ever.

 

[Zine]

I give them zero credit for not bringing their best players. The Soviets had everything to lose by endorsing the bestie concept.

Nonetheless, awesome players. I guess there can never ever be another Game One. Most extraordinary. By the time Henderson got his second goal I knew we were facing a real team.

Don't fall for the mantra that decisions were always made for the good of the state.

The genesis of the weakened roster was Kulagin declining to coach the tournament.
Tikhonov once said he didn't know why Kulagin vacated his position for the tournament, but the idea to field an ‘experimental’ squad was Kulagin’s as, official head coach, he still had the authority to pick the team. It left authorities scrambling and a meeting of CPSU was called. It was attended by league coaches who all said the situation was a disaster.
However when it was Tikhonov’s turn to speak he said “give me Tretiak and we will place no lower than third”...and Tikhonov was named the interim replacement.

In "The Battle Of The Iron Coaches", author Razzakov recalls Tikhonov saying how Kulagin showed up at Canada Cup training camp and would call players over to him. Tikhonov later asked Vasilyev what Kulagin was saying. Vasilyev responded “Why are you trying so hard?”

With Kharlamov injured, Kulagin saw the 1976 CC as an opportunity to quell any potential threats for his head coach position. Stupid him, it allowed Tikhonov to get his foot in the door.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Hull and Orr had a strong tournament in 1976. Both were excluded (health, WHA) in 1972 and were better hockey players in 1972.

Hull ended up scoring the game winner in the round robin Soviet game. Orr had two goals and an assist in the first final game against Czechoslovakia.

The addition of Potvin helped a lot too.

One wonders how different hockey history would be if Orr and Hull played in 1972. Maybe Canada does much better against the Soviets, but never learns anything. And the Soviets spend the 80s trouncing Canada.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Hull and Orr had a strong tournament in 1976. Both were excluded (health, WHA) in 1972 and were better hockey players in 1972.

Hull ended up scoring the game winner in the round robin Soviet game. Orr had two goals and an assist in the first final game against Czechoslovakia.

The addition of Potvin helped a lot too.

One wonders how different hockey history would be if Orr and Hull played in 1972. Maybe Canada does much better against the Soviets, but never learns anything. And the Soviets spend the 80s trouncing Canada.

Ya Bobby Hull wasn’t allowed to play in ‘72, as he had just signed to play in the WHA, for the upcoming season in a couple of weeks.
NHL and the PA decided not to let him play, cause he jumped leagues.
As Chicago wouldn’t pay him, and he became the highest paid pro player, by a lot.
Sure would of been nice to see Hull and Orr, like you said.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

Don't fall for the mantra that decisions were always made for the good of the state.

well said !