HOH Top 70 Players of All Time (2009)

[Sentinel]

Canada team could have had better or more high talent but lose or have a hard time winning againts a more coesive team. Also the all time great have to be in their prime to count during the event.

Canada 1998 had a better player all time wise than Hasek in Gretzky, but Gretzky was no Jagr or Lindros back then.

True, but you see, Gretzky, Messier, Bourque, and Lemieux WERE in their prime in 1987. If they were as much better than the Soviet squad as the Top 70 list would make one believe, they would have walked all over them.

 

[seventieslord]

True, but you see, Gretzky, Messier, Bourque, and Lemieux WERE in their prime in 1987. If they were as much better than the Soviet squad as the Top 70 list would make one believe, they would have walked all over them.

Not when those teams were raised and trained to play with eachother year-round. Not for 21 different teams, coaches, and systems.

 

[211*]

messier better then jagr? canadian bias at its finest. obviously messier brings a lot more to the table, but still give me a break

 

[Sentinel]

Not when those teams were raised and trained to play with eachother year-round. Not for 21 different teams, coaches, and systems.

Right, but an argument can be made that competitiveness of NHL benefits player' development more than lack of competition in the Soviet High League in the 80s, when CSKA became champion 13 years in a row.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Fetisov's stock seemed to increase just a bit during the 2011 defenseman project (swapping places with Robinson).

Agreed that Makarov is much too low.

Krutov has a peak worthy of a top 100 player, but his sudden and complete fall from grace when removed from the Soviet system raises serious questions

IMO Makarov and Fetisov were the best players in that 5 man Unit and although they didn't age as well as others have they get pretty good treatment in the history section.

Krutov and his complete collapse outside of the Russian system is inexcusable and his peak needs to be taken with a huge * IMO

I knew somebody would bring this up. And that brings up another point. In the 1987 CC three game series, considered by many to be the greatest hockey exhibition of all time, all three games decided by one goal (two went into OT), and Canada ended up winning 2-1. I'm going to ignore "the Koharsky aspect" for the time being. I hope everybody agrees that this was a very close contest.

Now. Gretzky is #1 in the Top 70 list, Lemieux is #4, Bourque is #10, Messier is #22, Coffey is #46. The only Russian players in that list are Fetisov at #33 and Makarov at #61. Shouldn't this be a little closer, given the close nature of these three games? You can, of course, argue that the Russian team was more than the sum of its parts, but still, shouldn't the Russian players be ranked higher? Hell, Team USSR had Mylnikov and Belosheikin in goal!

we are talking about 3 games here and the Russians were indeed more than the sum of their parts IMO and the fact that the units trained and played together for long periods of time compared to the thrown together nature of the Canadian team can explain p[art of the level of competition IMO.

We have plenty of evidence on their 5 man unit fared in the NHL and beyond and it's not unreasonable to state that at least some if not all of that 5 man unit can be over rated if we only looked at their games playing in the Russian league and for Russia internationally.

 

[VMBM]

Although I agree that per se, the 3 games played in the 1987 CC are not a very strong argument in proving that the Soviet players should be ranked higher, there is absolutely nothing questionable about Krutov's peak - not if you watched him in the 1980s. The idea that he was succesful only because of the circumstances is just downright ridiculous. The guy had sick talent and was one of the best players in the world, especially in 1986-88. The Soviet system may have suited him, but that it MADE him... bollocks. I hate this idea that "well, Kharlamov and Makarov proved they were great but Krutov, hmmm".

It would make me doubt his peak actually more that if - after his failed NHL career - he had returned to being a superstar player in USSR/Russia, but no; it's like he disappeared from the face of the (hockey) earth, playing in the Swiss league (mediocre numbers even there) and in the lower level Swedish club team/league.

If you haven't watched this clip (USSR vs. USA in 1980) yet, do yourselves a favour. At about 22:48 in the video, Krutov takes a long pass from Bilyaletdinov and just blows past the American defender and fools Jim Craig so easily that it's not even funny. Which other Soviet player was that good at 19? But I'm sure they had practised that 1823452345 times before and the opponent was so poor that it doesn't require any talent


*just hitting my head against the wall once again*

 

[VMBM]

And we only have evidence on how they fared in the NHL as 30-year olds. It's still amazing to me that to some people it is not clear that the difference between a 20-24 year old NHL rookie and 29-31 year old one is huge.

 

[Theokritos]

...there is absolutely nothing questionable about Krutov's peak - not if you watched him in the 1980s. The idea that he was succesful only because of the circumstances is just downright ridiculous. The guy had sick talent and was one of the best players in the world, especially in 1986-88. The Soviet system may have suited him, but that it MADE him... bollocks.

Agreed. Krutov was talented enough to let Makarov behind him in the 1983, 1987 and 1988 "best player" voting in the Soviet league. Okay, Makarov played fewer games in 1983, but not in 1987 and 1988. Krutov was simply that good.

...it's like he disappeared from the face of the (hockey) earth, playing in the Swiss league (mediocre numbers even there)...

In Switzerland (1991-1992), even when he was scoring, fans and newspapers would make fun of him and claim his motto was "Aus dem Stand geht es besser" (in English, mutatis mutandis: "It's better working from a standing position") because of his lack of movement. A far cry from the Krutov the world saw before Summer 1989.

And we only have evidence how they fared in the NHL as 30-year olds. It's still amazing to me that to some people it is not clear that the difference between a 20-24 year old NHL rookie and 29-31 year old one is huge.

29-31 year old rookies who were used to a very different training regime and tactical approach. They landed in an alien environment, partially even hostile.

Krutov and his complete collapse outside of the Russian system is inexcusable and his peak needs to be taken with a huge * IMO

Inexcusable? Maybe, but not in a sense that tarnishes Krutov's legacy pre-1989.
Inexplainable? Not at all.

If the Russian "system" had one effect, it was that it forced them to train year in year out. Everything was prescribed and monitored by the coaches: work out, scrimmage, meal, work out, scrimmage, meal. Everything was taken care of, you simply followed provisions. The consequences were:
1) Lots of training time, good for individual skills and team play.
2) Top physical shape, though the draconian regime took its toll after 30 (the Soviets retired players from the National Team once they were 31 or 32).

Going from such a regime to the NHL where you have to take care of your own much more is a challenge not everybody was able to deal with. Alexander Barinev pretty much nailed it when he was asked about his opinion on Soviet players during the 1992-1993 season. Barinev was a Russian forward who had played for Spartak Moscow in the 1970s and 1980s and was allowed to play and coach in Austria and Germany from 1980 on. He said the Soviet players are "like soldiers": "Without pressure and clear orders, they don't know what to do."
Krutov is an extreme example for this. Once he left CSKA Moscow, he suddenly had to take care of his fitness level for himself. And he suddenly had access to material wealth (food...) unknown before. He wasn't prepared and didn't manage to live like a professional hockey player in the West. Handing freedom and money to Krutov in 1989 turned out like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. He became a shadow of his former self in next to no time. But that doesn't tell us anything about his level up until 1989.

 

[Sentinel]

IMO Makarov and Fetisov were the best players in that 5 man Unit and although they didn't age as well as others have they get pretty good treatment in the history section.

Krutov and his complete collapse outside of the Russian system is inexcusable and his peak needs to be taken with a huge * IMO



we are talking about 3 games here and the Russians were indeed more than the sum of their parts IMO and the fact that the units trained and played together for long periods of time compared to the thrown together nature of the Canadian team can explain p[art of the level of competition IMO.

We have plenty of evidence on their 5 man unit fared in the NHL and beyond and it's not unreasonable to state that at least some if not all of that 5 man unit can be over rated if we only looked at their games playing in the Russian league and for Russia internationally.

One more time.
1. Are you willing to judge Lecavalier and Richards based on their abysmal performance in Russia in 2005?
2. Training together year round certainly helped, but Canadian players had one distinct advantage: the NHL was far more competitive than the High League. It undoubtedly offset some of the benefit the Soviets enjoyed.

Don't know what you're talking about regarding Fetisov's longevity. He did just fine at 40. Not to speak of Larionov who seems to be criminally underrated here.

 

[Sentinel]

All in all, I hold great "players of the past" in far lesser esteem than many of the sentimental folks here. Some of the people on this Top 70 list would have a problem cracking modern NHL lineup, let alone be All Stars. And I would certainly place Soviet greats higher on this list.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

One more time.
1. Are you willing to judge Lecavalier and Richards based on their abysmal performance in Russia in 2005?
2. Training together year round certainly helped, but Canadian players had one distinct advantage: the NHL was far more competitive than the High League. It undoubtedly offset some of the benefit the Soviets enjoyed.

Don't know what you're talking about regarding Fetisov's longevity. He did just fine at 40. Not to speak of Larionov who seems to be criminally underrated here.

Larionov was 29 when he came to the NHL. He played longer in North America than in Russia. He was not an all-star calibre player in the NHL. He and Kasatonov, to me, benefitted most from playing on the Green unit.

Krutov is the player I think is seriously underrated.

 

[Michael Farkas]

All in all, I hold great "players of the past" in far lesser esteem than many of the sentimental folks here. Some of the people on this Top 70 list would have a problem cracking modern NHL lineup, let alone be All Stars. And I would certainly place Soviet greats higher on this list.

Who cares if Cyclone Taylor, transplanted out of the 1910's and 20's with his leather skates and heavy wooden stick could crack a lineup today. That's date-of-birth bias, he made the best of what he could with what he was given. Why penalize him for his DOB? It's historical analysis vs. peers, not "Sentinel's 24 hours with a time machine"

 

[Ivan13]

All in all, I hold great "players of the past" in far lesser esteem than many of the sentimental folks here. Some of the people on this Top 70 list would have a problem cracking modern NHL lineup, let alone be All Stars. And I would certainly place Soviet greats higher on this list.

Appreciating the past greats of this great game is purely sentimental?

Also who on the HOH boards cares if they would be able to crack the NHL roster?

Past greats deserve as much respect as the ones who are playing today. Saying that guys like Shore or Morenz for example shouldn't be considered as some of the greats makes as much sense as saying that Alexander the Great wasn't a great general because his troops would get slaughter by todays third worlds armies.

 

[Sentinel]

Appreciating the past greats of this great game is purely sentimental?

Also who on the HOH boards cares if they would be able to crack the NHL roster?

Past greats deserve as much respect aes the ones who are playing today. Saying that guys like Shore or Morenz for example shouldn't be considered as some of the greats makes as much sense as saying that Alexander the Great wasn't a great general because his troops would get slaughter by todays third worlds armies.

B.S. The main difference between Alexander's army and modern ones is the equipment. Give Shore the most modern composite stick and he will do no better.

I appreciate the greats of old, just not as much as some people here.

 

[croAVSfan*]

Larionov was 29 when he came to the NHL. He played longer in North America than in Russia. He was not an all-star calibre player in the NHL. He and Kasatonov, to me, benefitted most from playing on the Green unit.

Krutov is the player I think is seriously underrated.

Krutov ? If you look at his NHL carrer than he is the weakest one from Green unit.

 

[Ivan13]

B.S. The main difference between Alexander's army and modern ones is the equipment. Give Shore the most modern composite stick and he will do no better.

I appreciate the greats of old, just not as much as some people here.

No it's not BS, because they wouldn't know how to utilize them properly without proper training and education on modern warfare.

 

[Theokritos]

Krutov ? If you look at his NHL carrer...

...then you're not doing him justice.

 

[croAVSfan*]

...then you're not doing him justice.

Previous post was about Larionov and NHL and in same post was mentioned Krutov, so I made post referring his time in NHL.

Of course that Krutov was great player, international legend, who maybe could have had way better NHL carrer if he didn't live/play in time of communist regime. I have DVD's from '87 CC cup and he was simply amazing.

R.I.P. #9

 

[Sentinel]

No it's not BS, because they wouldn't know how to utilize them properly without proper training and education on modern warfare.

In their agility, survival skills, endurance, hand-to-hand combat (especially with cold weaponry), and even physical strength, they would match well against most of today's warriors. Unlike any hockey old-timers.

 

[Ivan13]

In their agility, survival skills, endurance, hand-to-hand combat (especially with cold weaponry), and even physical strength, they would match well against most of today's warriors. Unlike any hockey old-timers.

They wouldn't.

 

[Sentinel]

Larionov was 29 when he came to the NHL. He played longer in North America than in Russia. He was not an all-star calibre player in the NHL. He and Kasatonov, to me, benefitted most from playing on the Green unit.

Sure was. Larionov was an All-Star in 1998. Plus, on the team with Fedorov, Yzerman, Shanahan, and Lidstrom it was pretty hard to make an All Star team. Even Fedorov only made it 5 times, while we both know he was an elite player all the way.

 

[tommygunn]

All in all, I hold great "players of the past" in far lesser esteem than many of the sentimental folks here. Some of the people on this Top 70 list would have a problem cracking modern NHL lineup, let alone be All Stars. And I would certainly place Soviet greats higher on this list.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=20296230&postcount=2

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Krutov was 29 years old and one of the best players in the world when he left the USSR. He was only 5'9 but he was all muscle and played a power game - his nickname was "the Tank." He comes to North America and in only 4 months, the muscle all turns to flab and he's barely NHL calibre if at all.

The rest of the Green Unit played reasonably well in the NHL considering their ages and the completely new style of play:

1) Makarov (31) was one of the most productive players of his age group in the NHL for his first few years.
2) Fetsisov (31) struggled greatly with playing with NHL forward teammates not being in the Soviet positions for breakouts. Nonetheless, he was a legit top 4 defensemen for NJ before moving to a more European system in Detroit and excelling there as a veteran player.
3) Kasatonov (30) wasn't a star but was NJ's best defenseman for a few years before wearing out
4) Larionov (29) - always a defense-first forward, he struggled offensively at first without his linemates but played well defensively and picked up the offense by his third year in the NHL. Later on, he was a key to Dan Jose's upset win over Detroit, then contributed as a secondary player to Detroit's 3 Cups.

Then there is Krutov (29). By the late 80s, he had probably become makarov's equal as one of the best players in the world. He comes to North America and in 4 months isn't even an NHL-calibre player anymore. Then there is this from an interview with Ed Willes, author of Gretzky to Lemieux: The Story of the 1987 Canada Cup:

7. In Larionov’s autobiography, his famous 1988 letter to Ogonyok is reprinted. He states that all members of the “Green Unit”–including Vladimir Krutov–refused to accept mysterious injections from national team doctors prior to the 1982 World Championships in Finland. However, in Gretzky to Lemieux, you write: “Larionov intimated that Krutov had been fed steroids on a consistent basis when he played for the national team that helped account for his great strength on the puck.” So the picture is a bit murky. Is it your view that we’re looking at an East German women’s swimming team-type scenario, so to speak?

That’s my view, but to be clear, we’re talking about Krutov here, not Larionov. I talked to two members of the Vancouver Canucks organization who were around when both players came over in 1989, and they both said one of the reasons Krutov was so bad was because he’d been cut off from his supply of steroids. Can I prove that? No.

http://hockeyadventure.com/2007/11/...hind-the-book-with-ed-willes-of-the-province/

When I say Krutov's sudden fall leads to concerns about how good he actually was, that's what I mean.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Interesting but......

Krutov was 29 years old and one of the best players in the world when he left the USSR. He was only 5'9 but he was all muscle and played a power game - his nickname was "the Tank." He comes to North America and in only 4 months, the muscle all turns to flab and he's barely NHL calibre if at all.

The rest of the Green Unit played reasonably well in the NHL considering their ages and the completely new style of play:

1) Makarov (31) was one of the most productive players of his age group in the NHL for his first few years.
2) Fetsisov (31) struggled greatly with playing with NHL forward teammates not being in the Soviet positions for breakouts. Nonetheless, he was a legit top 4 defensemen for NJ before moving to a more European system in Detroit and excelling there as a veteran player.
3) Kasatonov (30) wasn't a star but was NJ's best defenseman for a few years before wearing out
4) Larionov (29) - always a defense-first forward, he struggled offensively at first without his linemates but played well defensively and picked up the offense by his third year in the NHL. Later on, he was a key to Dan Jose's upset win over Detroit, then contributed as a secondary player to Detroit's 3 Cups.

Then there is Krutov (29). By the late 80s, he had probably become makarov's equal as one of the best players in the world. He comes to North America and in 4 months isn't even an NHL-calibre player anymore. Then there is this from an interview with Ed Willes, author of Gretzky to Lemieux: The Story of the 1987 Canada Cup:



http://hockeyadventure.com/2007/11/...hind-the-book-with-ed-willes-of-the-province/

When I say Krutov's sudden fall leads to concerns about how good he actually was, that's what I mean.

Accurate and interesting analysis but all you have shown is the likelihood that the Green Unit played well beyond the sum of the individual skills.

Anytime you have a defensive pairing , forward line or a five man unit, a basic question has to be asked. Why not split them?

Estimate the Green Unit TOI at 25 min/PG.Leaving 35 min for the rest of the team Split the two defensemen plus one of the forwards
and you will have Green Unit components on the ice for 50 minutes of the game.

It has been repeatidly stated that the individual Green Unit members had problems adapting to the NHL. Similar problems to splitting the components then realizing that it is not working all that well.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Accurate and interesting analysis but all you have shown is the likelihood that the Green Unit played well beyond the sum of the individual skills.

Anytime you have a defensive pairing , forward line or a five man unit, a basic question has to be asked. Why not split them?

Estimate the Green Unit TOI at 25 min/PG.Leaving 35 min for the rest of the team Split the two defensemen plus one of the forwards
and you will have Green Unit components on the ice for 50 minutes of the game.

It has been repeatidly stated that the individual Green Unit members had problems adapting to the NHL. Similar problems to splitting the components then realizing that it is not working all that well.

The Green Unit was greater than the sum of its parts, but that sum was as good as anything Canada could put together, so the parts must have been pretty good too.