JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 18,054
- 12,663
I'm convinced now, Makarov deserves to make my all time team Canada.
Canada All Time Team
- Thread starter Eye of Ra
- Start date
I think there are several reasons:
1) Kharlamov played aesthetic hockey. The Soviets also went crazy over Maltsev, a lot more than Canadians. I think it was mostly the Canadians who ended up (justly) propping up Yakushev who most likely wouldn't be remembered as fondly as he is were it not for the Canadians. Petrov was a slower player who played a well rounded efficient more physical hockey.
2) Kharlamov had a large car accident in 76 which had a significant impact on his scoring ability in the late 1970s when he was clearly the worst player out of the three so it skews the numbers a little bit.
3) Kharlamov had the highest peak in the early 70s out of the three (not by much though). Kharlamov also had a better international start and when they broke off the lines and made Kharlamov play with guys like Vikulov Firsov and Maltsev he shined whereas Mikhailov and Petrov seemed to have dipped without Kharlamov (although they would use some shitty players to fill his spot so it wasn't totally fair).
These were their league stats before they broke off the lines (68/69 --> 70/71)
When they eventually brought them back together both Petrov and Mikhailov no longer seemed to perform worse internationally.
4) Internationally they were much closer in scoring and Petrov didn't stand out anymore (though he didn't really seem to do worse than Kharlamov either at least scoring wise).
I personally don't think there was a significant difference between the three but I would still put Kharlamov on top if we were to judge peak only. Here I translated a video where Mikhailov and the former Spartak coach Shuvalov discuss this very topic:
Last edited:
I’m not sure it’s yikes worthy but yeah I wouldn’t have him ahead of Crosby either.
Last edited:
I always knew instinctively that Makarov was better than Kharlamov from watching them (because many have claimed Kharlamov was better) but I didn’t realize just how much more dominant he was. Makes sense that Kharlamov was the best of that era at his peak though, he certainly was an exciting player to watch and his skill stood out in a huge way in the late 60s and early 70s.
People also viewed international performances as way more important. I think it makes sense since these games are tougher. It's similar to play off hockey. Vladimir Krutov had a near nonexistent drop off and his international stats, albeit worse than Makarov's don't look that much worse anymore. Larionov had a massive statistical drop off and wasn't seen anywhere in CC87 for example. It was one of my main arguments against Clarke and Dionne. Even though Clarke had significant success in the play offs winning two Stanley Cups his individual point production dropped more than in other star players I looked up from that era. The same story internationally. Kharlamov had a stellar international career and scored beautiful goals despite not standing out as much domestically. Similar story with Firsov who even though had a few seasons where he led in scoring he didn't stand out extremely so but internationally he was head and shoulders above everyone else in those late 60s early 70s tournaments. I'd like to see more posts which only isolate player's stats against top teams only. There would surely be some surprises.
Staniowski
Registered User
Oh yes, I think so. Makarov is very easily one of the ten best scorers of all-time, maybe top five. Only Gretzky and Lemieux are definitely better scorers. He'd probably be competitive with anybody else.
Makarov had it all - great skater, great puck skills, great goal-scorer, great passer, puck carrier, stick handler, extremely smart, excellent drive, good defensively. The best practitioner ever of the Soviet puck-control system.
I always felt during the 87 Canada Cup that he didn’t appear much worse to me than Gretzky and Lemieux, infact in many ways he looked better, such as carrying the puck, skating, deking, etc. I am definitely going to have to go back and watch more of him now.
Staniowski
Registered User
Kharlamov had stronger individual skills than Petrov (or Mikhailov, or Maltsev). He was a bigger difference-maker. He could really make things happen with his offensive talent.
As @Overrated said, Petrov was efficient. If i had to describe very simply why he often outscored his linemates, I would say it's because Petrov was better at more aspects of the game than they were, and, in his case, that often enabled him to score more.
He just didn't have Kharlamov's virtuoso individual skills.
I think it's very likely but only if they let him play his game. If he played with Stastny or on the Oilers then I have no doubts. Most Europeans didn't do too well in the NHL due to stylistic differences. I mean he wasn't that old when he came over. One can see how much better Larionov and Fetisov got once they could play their game in Detroit.
