Canada Cup - Best On Best or Not?

[Yakushev72]

Man that is some fix isn't it? If not for a great defensive play by Coffey in 1984 and timely save after timely save in overtime of Game 2 in 1987 by Fuhr the Soviets would have won. They sure looked like they were trying to win rather than just "playing along". And if this so-called fix is real then the usual mastermind of Eagleson wasn't very good at it was he? And I can't imagine Eagleson not being good at doing something evil. What I am saying is that this sounds like sour grapes to me. 1987 was probably the best hockey we've ever seen to this day. This was not an exhibition by any means. If so, then the Soviets were pretty darn good actors as well as Tikhonov. They sure looked like they wanted to win and were scolded when they lost.

If I suggested that the Soviets just laid down and let Canada win, that is absolutely not true. They obviously tried their best and gave it their all. At times during the Soviet era they were the equals of Canada, but they were never demonstrably better. What I was really referring to was why the Soviets continued to participate in the Canada Cup after 1984, when the rules were changed in mid-stream in a way that greatly added to the competitive advantage that Canada already had. Somewhere in this thread, a YouTube video was posted showing the outrageous refereeing in the 1987 CC round-robin game between Canada and the Soviets. The great Canadian hockey announcer Dan Kelly made the now-famous assessment of American Mike Noeth's refereeing: "Well, I'm cheering for Canada, but this is ridiculous".

Under other circumstances, a top team like the Soviets would have politely finished out the tournament and just not participated in any future editions. In my opinion, the Soviets just kept coming back for more because it was one of the few sources of cash money that they had access to. They were willing to take the loss in order to get the money.

 

[Theokritos]

Choosing not to send all your best becouse of political reasons does not give anyone an option to give excuses.

I don't care for excuses, the Soviets decided not to send their best team, it's their own fault they lost. I do however care for reality and when estimating the strength of the Soviets the fact that their team at the 1976 Canada Cup was far from their best is very relevant & must not be ignored.

Still don't know what it's got to do with cheating.

 

[Big Phil]

If I suggested that the Soviets just laid down and let Canada win, that is absolutely not true. They obviously tried their best and gave it their all. At times during the Soviet era they were the equals of Canada, but they were never demonstrably better. What I was really referring to was why the Soviets continued to participate in the Canada Cup after 1984, when the rules were changed in mid-stream in a way that greatly added to the competitive advantage that Canada already had. Somewhere in this thread, a YouTube video was posted showing the outrageous refereeing in the 1987 CC round-robin game between Canada and the Soviets. The great Canadian hockey announcer Dan Kelly made the now-famous assessment of American Mike Noeth's refereeing: "Well, I'm cheering for Canada, but this is ridiculous".

Under other circumstances, a top team like the Soviets would have politely finished out the tournament and just not participated in any future editions. In my opinion, the Soviets just kept coming back for more because it was one of the few sources of cash money that they had access to. They were willing to take the loss in order to get the money.

Willing to take the loss? Man, they were an overtime goal away in 1984 and 1987 from beating Canada. This was a team interested in hockey supremacy. Watch those games again, they were trying their best to win and in each case were a lucky bounce away from winning. Remember, that in 1987 there was also Rendez-Vous which replaced the NHL All-Star game that year. For all intents and purposes that was Team Canada playing against the Soviets even if it was "Team NHL". A couple of American defensemen (Langway, Chelios) and Tikannen, Kurri and Sandstrom for Europeans. The teams won a game each. If you think that was nothing more than exhibition than you'll think the 1976 Super Series was as well, and it wasn't.

The Soviets stubbornly left some players at home in 1976 and 1991 and since then they've just internally been a colossal mess as we saw in 2014. But in the 1980s they always sent their best, they just lost after 1981. But if the ping pong balls bounced the other way in 1984 would you say they were only there for money or for victory?

 

[Yakushev72]

Willing to take the loss? Man, they were an overtime goal away in 1984 and 1987 from beating Canada. This was a team interested in hockey supremacy. Watch those games again, they were trying their best to win and in each case were a lucky bounce away from winning. Remember, that in 1987 there was also Rendez-Vous which replaced the NHL All-Star game that year. For all intents and purposes that was Team Canada playing against the Soviets even if it was "Team NHL". A couple of American defensemen (Langway, Chelios) and Tikannen, Kurri and Sandstrom for Europeans. The teams won a game each. If you think that was nothing more than exhibition than you'll think the 1976 Super Series was as well, and it wasn't.

The Soviets stubbornly left some players at home in 1976 and 1991 and since then they've just internally been a colossal mess as we saw in 2014. But in the 1980s they always sent their best, they just lost after 1981. But if the ping pong balls bounced the other way in 1984 would you say they were only there for money or for victory?

I absolutely agree that the Soviets went all out in trying to win. They would have loved to be able to claim being alone at the top of the mountain. The Canada Cup wasn't an appropriate venue for the Soviets to accomplish that. This was all about Alan Eagleson, and Eagleson understood that the Soviets were strapped for cash as the Soviet government began withdrawing funding from Sports programs in about 1984. Soviet hockey had no real way to generate revenue through fan interest, and Eagleson knew it. The Soviets would have loved to have negotiated a home-and-home with referees from neutral countries, as in 1972, but Eagleson knew he was in a commanding position and didn't have to back off.

After the Soviet government disbanded and Russia sunk into a deep economic depression, Russian hockey followed suit in an all-out collapse. In 1991, there were only about 75 indoor rinks in all of Russia. Players and coaches alike missed paychecks for months at a time. Youth coaches at hockey schools disappeared, often times stealing whatever they could. Since 2007, there has been a big surge in rink building, and youth leagues, which previously never existed, have sprung up. That may portend well for the future, but the future is still years down the road.

 

[kasps]

With all the talent that Russia produces ,amazing the last best on best the Russians won was in 1981! Great individual players but maybe struggle coming together as a team and forwards not all that interested in playing at both ends of the rink.

 

[VMBM]

Remember, that in 1987 there was also Rendez-Vous which replaced the NHL All-Star game that year. For all intents and purposes that was Team Canada playing against the Soviets even if it was "Team NHL". A couple of American defensemen (Langway, Chelios) and Tikannen, Kurri and Sandstrom for Europeans. The teams won a game each. If you think that was nothing more than exhibition than you'll think the 1976 Super Series was as well, and it wasn't.

Ramsey, Samuelsson...

Very entertaining & ultra-skilled hockey; Kamensky, Bykov and Khomutov brilliant for the Soviets.

However, while it was more than just a regular exhibition/All-Star series, IMO it seemed clearly less intense than the 1979 Challenge Cup. They didn't even bother to find a winner for the series (the schedule just didn't allow it, I believe).