Canada Cup - Best On Best or Not?

[Big Phil]

The advantages Canada had in most of the Canada Cups were not the same advantages a home team usually has in a tournament. It was not just about playing in front of a home crowd or on the smaller ice. Canada had favorable officiating and also advantages in things like scheduling, which other home teams don't usually have.

All of the games were in North America. They travelled the same as other countries. Most of the games were in Canada, be it Winnipeg, Montreal or Toronto for example. This is just mere excuses here.

This just shows that Canada had a slight advantage when it came to being penalized. However, this meant that Canadian players often got away with serious fouls, while the Soviet players were called for minor infractions or things that were not penalties at all.

You mean like bodychecking and all that junk? Seriously, what did they get away with in those games?

That is because it was not a penalty. This was discussed in another thread not that long ago.

How can people not think that wasn't a lucky break for the Russians? They caught a break, why is that so hard to see here?

You think Koharski or someone involved would admit that the officiating was not fair? Why does it matter anyway? It is not like we can't watch the games and see this.

Wouldn't something have come out by now though? All the crap Eagleson went through you think in this day and age of Twitter and Facebook and such there would even be a rumour of this happening but it wasn't. Don Cherry said in 2002 when he realized that Bill McCreary was going to be the referee in the gold medal game that Canada would get the first penalty. Because as Canadians we bend over backwards to make sure the game is fair. Sure enough, Canada had the first penalty.

Why did they ask for Koharski? Probably simply because he was less bad an option than the referee in the round-robin game (Mike Noeth) and whoever it was in the 2nd final (disallowed 2 goals by the Soviets; the other one was probably scored with a high stick, but the other one is still a mystery to me, as it was for the Canadian commentators). Summa summarum, USSR didn't have too many choices; does that seem clear to you now?

Canada had a disallowed goal in Game 1, you know?

It is also interesting that Dan Kelly and Ron Reusch - who by no means never even pretended to be just 'objective observers' - did not see anything questionable with Khomutov's goal (i.e. Bourque falling & losing the puck), even though the play was replayed at least a couple of times. And if Koharski missed something, he also missed Khomutov being hit by a Canadian player right after that goal - or just didn't care about it: NHL hockey, yeah!

They probably realized they gave the Soviets a break which meant they weren't giving Canada a penalty after the goal. That goal was the direct result of a hook that made the game 4-2 while Canada had all the momentum. It couldn't be more direct. This was the best defenseman in the NHL going down like that. I'm not sure why Kelly didn't mention this while he was calling the game. But shouldn't there be more focus on the fact that the Soviets squandered a 3 goal lead for 2nd time in three games?

I just reviewed the penalties that were called against the Canadians in that game, and I couldn't find a single one that was questionable. Please help me with this and name those penalties that Canada did not deserve. I mean, if you come out with a bad-ass attitude, swing your stick all night and complain about everything - like Team Canada did in that game - you can expect to get many penalties. Watch e.g. Phil Esposito's 'nice little checks' in the 1st period (on Shadrin) and 2nd period (on Ragulin), or Valeri Kharlamov being roughed up all night.

Bobby Clarke slashes the ankle of USSR's best forward and he gets a minor penalty + 10 minute misconduct; I think Team Canada got a gift with that call; obviously Clarke should have been thrown out of the game.

If there were some missed calls against the Russians, that's another thing, but I'd like at least one Canadian person to admit that TC played very dirty in that game, and their attitude simply stank right from the start.

The stickwork the Soviets had in 1972 was legendary as well.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Mother of god.

It's extremely easy to fault them. So easy that it is not even worth the trouble.

LA screwed up. Plain and simple.

You have a diamond you try to hone it. What you don't want to do is to smash it. What a terrible failure.

you must be kidding

 

[Tree-hugger]

you must be kidding

Yes and no.

Karalahti had all the qualities to be a premium d-man. If you have a guy like that you most certainly don't want to get tough on him. At least you'll leave religion out of it because it's probably the most stupid thing you could possibly do.

If you can't read people at all you might as well be selling burgers.

I see it as a failure. Feel free to see it differently.

 

[YMB29]

All of the games were in North America. They travelled the same as other countries. Most of the games were in Canada, be it Winnipeg, Montreal or Toronto for example. This is just mere excuses here.

These are not my excuses. That is what the teams complained about.
In 1987 Canada played all the games except one in Montreal or Hamilton.

You mean like bodychecking and all that junk? Seriously, what did they get away with in those games?

Cheap shots, holding, hooks, trips, interference... Many of which prevented goals against or led to goals for.
You did not see this?

How can people not think that wasn't a lucky break for the Russians? They caught a break, why is that so hard to see here?

That was not a break for the Soviets. It was Canada again that "caught the break" as Koharski did not call the hit to the head after the goal and an obvious hook by Messier 30 seconds earlier when Canada was on the powerplay.

Wouldn't something have come out by now though? All the crap Eagleson went through you think in this day and age of Twitter and Facebook and such there would even be a rumour of this happening but it wasn't.

It is not like it was some complex conspiracy. Eagleson probably did not even have to bribe the NHL referees for them to call the games as needed. And if he did, they are not going to easily admit it.

Canada had a disallowed goal in Game 1, you know?

Yes, but it was obviously scored with a skate.

 

[canucksfan]

The stickwork the Soviets had in 1972 was legendary as well.

I often hear this and I have the series on DVD and have watched the games many times. Besides the Soviet D man kicking Bergman I don't the Soviets played dirty at all and can't recall any stick work. Do you have any examples?

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Five months earlier in 1987, this same Soviet team played 120 minutes against an inferior Canadian team at the World Championships on big ice. Penalties were even. Were those IIHF refs corrupt? Were the Canadians (playing on unfamiliar big ice) more skilled & didn't have to resort to fouls than the Canada Cup team?

 

[YMB29]

It's rather revealing that Russian dominance in IIHF events suddenly dissappeared when they found themselves playing with the same handicaps as everyone else, while Canada has remained pretty consistent at best-on-best events even with the IIHF running the show.

Same handicaps as everyone else? So Canada also had all of its best players start playing in foreign leagues instead of developing its own hockey in its domestic league?
After Soviet/Russian players started playing in the NHL, the USSR still won the WC in 1990 and the Olympics in 1992, and Russia won the WC in 1993. So the dominance did not just "suddenly disappear" right after Soviet/Russian players started playing in the NHL. After 1993 Russia did not win anything for a long time, but Russian hockey faced problems hockey in other countries did not.

 

[JackSlater]

I often hear this and I have the series on DVD and have watched the games many times. Besides the Soviet D man kicking Bergman I don't the Soviets played dirty at all and can't recall any stick work. Do you have any examples?

At roughly the 10:44 mark of this clip from game 5, Henderson gets slashed on a breakaway and ends up falling into the boards, concluding with a concussion. In any event though, while USSR were not the angels that many like to pretend they were, there is no doubt that Canada was the "dirtier" team on the ice. Not nearly to the degree that is often complained about though.

 

[Canuckistani]

Same handicaps as everyone else? So Canada also had all of its best players start playing in foreign leagues instead of developing its own hockey in its domestic league?

By "same handicap" I meant that Russia no longer had its best playing together year round on the national and Red Army teams. It was suddenly more even, instead of Soviet A squad vs everyone else's C squad.

In 1990, 1991 and 1992, the Soviet/CIS team was weakened by defections but still better than their opponents (especially at the 92 olympics).

After that their advantages in terms of both talent and team chemistry were gone, and so too were their gold medals. There were still plenty of great Russian talent, but national teams were plagued by endless conflict between players and management for the next 15+ years.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Here's support for linkage between the creation of the Canada Cup & NHLers being allowed in the World Championships, from the IIHF's own website:

At the 1975 congress in Gstaad, it happened at last. Ahearne wanted – once he realized that it would be a hopeless venture to run for re-election – to build, as his "legacy" to the federation, the Dutchman Fred Schweers up to head the federation. However, an opposition candidate presented himself in the person of the German Dr. Günther Sabetzki. Dr. Sabetzki came out on top already in the first ballot with the clear result of 36:16 votes, and a new era had begun in the international ice hockey. The almost two decades long lasting "era Sabetzki" was then not only the incomparably longest, but until then also the most successful period of the ice hockey in every respect, i.e. from the sports, the organizational as well as the economical point of view.
Canada’s return.

The first great success of the new president was Canada’s return to the official IIHF events. After the Canadians were refused the permission to enhance their world championship selection with professional players from those NHL teams that did not reach the play-off rounds of the North American professional championship (Stanley Cup), they refused to compete in the world championships as from 1970. The long, tenacious negotiations between Dr. Sabetzki and the top officials of the professional ice hockey resulted in a solution which was satisfactory for both parties: the Canadians and the Americans were allowed to enhance their world championship teams with professional players; in order to be able to achieve that most effectively, the world championships should in future take place as late as possible thus ensuring that a suitable player selection from among the NHL teams eliminated from the Stanley Cup would be available.

In their turn, the Canadians and Americans undertook to participate regularly in the world championships. In addition, they relinquished their application to host any world championship tournaments.

Canada Cup

In return, a competition for the "Canada Cup" should be played every four years on North American territory with the participation of Canada, the United States and the four strongest European national teams according to the last preceding world championship with the understanding that all the teams would be allowed to use their NHL professional players. Between 1976 and 1991, the Canada Cup was played five times; in 1996 it was replaced by the newly created World Cup – with some modifications in the organization method.

http://www.iihf.com/en/iihf-home/history/the-iihf/epochs/1975-1989.html

 

[Theokritos]

Five months earlier in 1987, this same Soviet team played 120 minutes against an inferior Canadian team at the World Championships on big ice. Penalties were even. Were those IIHF refs corrupt? Were the Canadians (playing on unfamiliar big ice) more skilled & didn't have to resort to fouls than the Canada Cup team?

A lot of things can happen in a one or two games, especially when you have a coach with lots of international experience like Dave King and know beforehand that IIHF referees don't necessarily call the game like NHL referees. Canada still had more PMs than the USSR in that tournament by the way.

It basically comes down to this: Team Canada players were more familiar with NHL refereeing, players of the USSR more familiar with IIHF refereeing. The notion that Canada's narrow victory in the 1987 Canada Cup could easily turn into a narrow defeat with IIHF referees in the place of NHL refs is not exactly far-fetched.

Here's support for linkage between the creation of the Canada Cup & NHLers being allowed in the World Championships, from the IIHF's own website:

My points were:
-Neither NHL owners nor the NHLPA had yet approved the Canada Cup when the IIHF lifted the ban on pros, and negotiations with the Europeans were still ongoing.
-It was the schedule issue that prevented many of Canada's top players from participating in the World Championship for the vast majority of the Canada Cup era, not a ban by the IIHF.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

-Neither NHL owners nor the NHLPA had yet approved the Canada Cup when the IIHF lifted the ban on pros, and negotiations with the Europeans were still ongoing.

Though Eagleson was negotiating on behalf of Hockey Canada, head of the NHLPA & in the owners' pocket all at the same time, so it was something of a done deal. Some US owners squawked (Ed Snider), but they were bought off with home games & money.

 

[RED ARMY EAST]

It wasn't best on best in 1991.

Otherwise, it was.

It was best on best, yes the Russians missed some talent in 91, but Canada was without the best in the World, " Mario the magnificent".

 

[Theokritos]

Though Eagleson was negotiating on behalf of Hockey Canada, head of the NHLPA & in the owners' pocket all at the same time, so it was something of a done deal. Some US owners squawked (Ed Snider), but they were bought off with home games & money.

Negotiations with the other countries were still ongoing however. It was only in January 1976 that all parties agreed to sign the Canada Cup contract.

My point: While the IIHF ban on professional players is an important factor when one wants to explain how & why the Canada Cup idea was developed, it should also be noted that by the time the Canada Cup was finally negotiated & agreed on this ban had already been declared void. It wasn't any IIHF ban that made the Canada Cup a "necessity" in 1975/1976, it was the incompatible schedules of NHL and IIHF that did.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Negotiations with the other countries were still ongoing however. It was only in January 1976 that all parties agreed to sign the Canada Cup contract.

My point: While the IIHF ban on professional players is an important factor when one wants to explain how & why the Canada Cup idea was developed, it should also be noted that by the time the Canada Cup was finally negotiated & agreed on this ban had already been declared void. It wasn't any IIHF ban that made the Canada Cup a "necessity" in 1975/1976, it was the incompatible schedules of NHL and IIHF that did.

By scheduling the WC during the NHL playoffs a partial ban of NA's best players effectively remained in place which, along with the full IOC ban, prevented an IIHF/IOC tournament from being open to all of the world's best players. While no tournament is a necessity the Canada Cup was the only competition at the time that was formed with the intent of having all the world's best players attend and the IIHF's rule changes in '75 and '76 didn't change that.

 

[Theokritos]

By scheduling the WC during the NHL playoffs

That's a partial way to frame it. The NHL could have adjusted its schedule like the rest of the world, but they decided to not do that. Their choice. Not saying they were wrong, but the impartial formula reads The incompatible schedules of IIHF and NHL prevented players from participating, not IIHF failed adjust its schedule or NHL failed to adjust its schedule.

 

[canucksfan]

At roughly the 10:44 mark of this clip from game 5, Henderson gets slashed on a breakaway and ends up falling into the boards, concluding with a concussion. In any event though, while USSR were not the angels that many like to pretend they were, there is no doubt that Canada was the "dirtier" team on the ice. Not nearly to the degree that is often complained about though.

From what I see he slashes Paul's stick, Paul loses his balance and then slams into the boards. Even the Canadian announcers said it was not a dirty play.

 

[YMB29]

By "same handicap" I meant that Russia no longer had its best playing together year round on the national and Red Army teams. It was suddenly more even, instead of Soviet A squad vs everyone else's C squad.

Who is everyone else?
The Soviet players did not play together year round.

In 1990, 1991 and 1992, the Soviet/CIS team was weakened by defections but still better than their opponents (especially at the 92 olympics).

I did not compare every team's roster to confirm this and I don't think you did too. I know that the CIS 1992 Olympics roster was better than Canada's, but still most of the team was made up of young players who would become stars in the NHL.

After that their advantages in terms of both talent and team chemistry were gone, and so too were their gold medals. There were still plenty of great Russian talent, but national teams were plagued by endless conflict between players and management for the next 15+ years.

Yes and I don't think other countries had this problem, so you can't say that the situation became even.

It basically comes down to this: Team Canada players were more familiar with NHL refereeing, players of the USSR more familiar with IIHF refereeing. The notion that Canada's narrow victory in the 1987 Canada Cup could easily turn into a narrow defeat with IIHF referees in the place of NHL refs is not exactly far-fetched.

Yes, but it was not only about the refereeing styles. If the NHL standards were applied to both teams equally, the USSR would not have more penalties...

It was best on best, yes the Russians missed some talent in 91, but Canada was without the best in the World, " Mario the magnificent".

You are saying that both the USSR and Canada were missing key players, so then how can you say that the tournament was best on best?
The Canada Cup was not "best on best" in 91 and also not in 76. The requirement that a team has to have its best players has to be applied to other teams too, not just Canada.

 

[Pominville Knows]

It is unfortunate for the soviets that they chose not to try to be the undisputed best country in the world by not sending all their best in 1976 and 1991.

Since it was such a ****** closed government it might be hard for anyone to know, but what was their reasoning behind this in 1976?

 

[canucksfan]

You are saying that both the USSR and Canada were missing key players, so then how can you say that the tournament was best on best?
The Canada Cup was not "best on best" in 91 and also not in 76. The requirement that a team has to have its best players has to be applied to other teams too, not just Canada.

Any tournament that all teams have their best available should be labelled as a best on best. In 1998 Canada had some injuries in the Olympis, that dosn't mean the tournament isn't best on best because of that.

 

[Big Phil]

USSR and Canada were missing key players, so then how can you say that the tournament was best on best?
The Canada Cup was not "best on best" in 91 and also not in 76. The requirement that a team has to have its best players has to be applied to other teams too, not just Canada.

I think it boils down to the fact that there was opportunity for each country to send their best. Canada had a combination of injuries, strange selections and a couple of them just flat out turning it down like Bourque. That being said, it was still "Team Canada" in my eyes. I mean, Canada was missing some top players in 2014 with Stamkos, Giroux, Staal, Thornton and initially St. Louis. There isn't going to be a tournament where there aren't some complicated selections out there. 1991 was one of those years that just had more of the top stars missing, heck, 1996 was like that with Canada too to an extent. But if you are playing in a tournament where 90% of your best players are there, it is about as good as you can get. Even in 2002 or 2010 there was a player or two missing and I would classify those Canadian teams as some of the best full capacity teams.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

It is unfortunate for the soviets that they chose not to try to be the undisputed best country in the world by not sending all their best in 1976 and 1991.

Since it was such a ****** closed government it might be hard for anyone to know, but what was their reasoning behind this in 1976?

Tikhonov was being set up to fail. But the plan blew up at the 1977 World Championships & he took over anyway.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

That's a partial way to frame it. The NHL could have adjusted its schedule like the rest of the world, but they decided to not do that. Their choice. Not saying they were wrong, but the impartial formula reads The incompatible schedules of IIHF and NHL prevented players from participating, not IIHF failed adjust its schedule or NHL failed to adjust its schedule.

In this matter the NHL effectively represents NA, which had over twice as many players and infrastructure as "the rest of the world" in terms of hockey and it is unreaslitic and undemocratic to expect the majority to follow the minority. Almong with the fact that the NHL schedule was there first it was certainly a case of the iihf not accomodating the nhl, not vice versa. By the way, what other leagues adjusted their schedule to accommodate the WC?

 

[Theokritos]

Tikhonov was being set up to fail.

Interesting claim, is there any source for this?

In this matter the NHL effectively represents NA, which had over twice as many players and infrastructure as "the rest of the world" in terms of hockey and it is unreaslitic and undemocratic to expect the majority to follow the minority.

And the IIHF represents the majority of the countries. You want international hockey = hockey with other countries, you have to find a compromise with them.

At least you basically admit that you represent a purely NA stance, hard-line. No compromise whatsoever, we are the majority.

the NHL schedule was there first

Is this of relevance?

it was certainly a case of the iihf not accomodating the nhl, not vice versa.

The IIHF changed its schedule to accomodate the NHL by moving the World Championship back two weeks. The NHL did not change its schedule.

By the way, what other leagues adjusted their schedule to accommodate the WC?

All the leagues in Europe, that's why they were able to send their top players to the WC.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

And the IIHF represents the majority of the countries. You want international hockey = hockey with other countries, you have to find a compromise with them.

They did. It was called the Canada Cup.

At least you basically admit that you represent a purely NA stance, hard-line. No compromise whatsoever, we are the majority.

I represent fairness and equality and being both North American and European allows me to see the situation with less bias than you.

Is this of relevance?

Absolutely, why wouldn't it be?

All the leagues in Europe, that's why they were able to send their top players to the WC.

Really? I was always under the impression that the WC were intentionally scheduled after the European league playoffs finished. Do you have a source to back this up?