Igor Larionov is the next Russsia U20 head coach

[Albatros]

Larionov was never a game changer, never someone who was counted on to produce when it was time to win Olympic medals or Stanley Cups. He was a playmaker, an assist man, and he had great stickhandling and skating skills that made him effective in his role. Makarov, in my opinion, was one of the two most dynamic Soviet (and maybe Russian) forwards of all time, close behind the incomparable Valery Kharlamov. As a skater, he could blow you off the ice, he was so explosive! As a side note, I believe that Makarov and Mario Lemieux were probably the only skaters in history that were never stopped on breakaways! They scored every time, and made it look easy!

Of the members of the "Green" line, Vladimir Krutov was the second most valuable member, in my opinion. He was incredibly tough and strong to complement his beautiful stickhandling and great scoring touch. Krutov was unhappy in the NHL and didn't even try to succeed - he was homesick and wanted to return to Moscow. In contrast with Krutov and Makarov, Larionov had no physical side to his game whatsoever. To be effective, he had to be paired up with guys like Makarov, Krutov, Sergei Fedorov and Steve Yzerman.

Be that as it may, Larionov still ranks 4th all time in NHL playoff scoring among over 30-year-olds. And that is not only assists, also goals he has more than all-time greats like Gretzky or Messier. This includes clutch ones like the 3OT game winner against Carolina in the 2002 finals, after already scoring an equalizer earlier in the game, or several winners against Colorado in the most heated playoff fixtures of the era. Makarov had his own special qualities and a longer career on top of Soviet hockey, for which he deserves full credit. But in the NHL he also mailed it in after only a handful of games, and the end of his career was a real downer.

 

[Yakushev72]

I think your statistic is a little misleading. Gretzky is the all-time leading goal scorer in Stanley Cup history, with 122 goals. Messier is second with 109. Larionov, on the other hand, after participating in the Stanley Cups for 14 years, only scored 30 goals. An average of a little over 2 goals per playoff season. He is not even in the top 50 all-time. Maybe in an over-30 or over-34 category age group, he shines more, but in comparison to Makarov and Krutov, I'll stick with the premise that his was more of a supporting role as a playmaker.

 

[moropanov]

I think your statistic is a little misleading. Gretzky is the all-time leading goal scorer in Stanley Cup history, with 122 goals. Messier is second with 109. Larionov, on the other hand, after participating in the Stanley Cups for 14 years, only scored 30 goals. An average of a little over 2 goals per playoff season. He is not even in the top 50 all-time. Maybe in an over-30 or over-34 category age group, he shines more, but in comparison to Makarov and Krutov, I'll stick with the premise that his was more of a supporting role as a playmaker.

Yes but playmaker can easily be better player than goal scorer even if point totals are about identical Larionov was brain of that line and arguably best player of them quite same as for example Datsyuk was greater player than many 50+ goal scorers even if he only scored like 25-30 goals himself its about overall ability.

 

[Yakushev72]

Yes but playmaker can easily be better player than goal scorer even if point totals are about identical Larionov was brain of that line and arguably best player of them quite same as for example Datsyuk was greater player than many 50+ goal scorers even if he only scored like 25-30 goals himself its about overall ability.

I don't argue that Larionov wasn't a brilliant stickhandler and passer, although in no way was he a magician at the same level as Datsyuk! You are entitled to your opinion about which was the best player on the Green Line, but I have Larionov in 3rd place out of three. As for him being the "brains" of the line, all have acknowledged that Viktor Tikhonov did all the brain work, whether they liked it or not!

 

[Atas2000]

Be that as it may, Larionov still ranks 4th all time in NHL playoff scoring among over 30-year-olds. And that is not only assists, also goals he has more than all-time greats like Gretzky or Messier. This includes clutch ones like the 3OT game winner against Carolina in the 2002 finals, after already scoring an equalizer earlier in the game, or several winners against Colorado in the most heated playoff fixtures of the era. Makarov had his own special qualities and a longer career on top of Soviet hockey, for which he deserves full credit. But in the NHL he also mailed it in after only a handful of games, and the end of his career was a real downer.

Why do you think we care about NHL achievements? Makarov was a FAR superior player. Like it or not. Who cares what his stint in the NHL was like?

 

[VMBM]

Yes but playmaker can easily be better player than goal scorer even if point totals are about identical Larionov was brain of that line and arguably best player of them quite same as for example Datsyuk was greater player than many 50+ goal scorers even if he only scored like 25-30 goals himself its about overall ability.

A little late here, but I just wanted to express what utter nonsense that claim is. Total revisionism.

People just seem to think that just because Larionov had the longest and probably the best NHL career of them all, he suddenly was the best player back in the Soviet Union and in international competition too. I lived those times and watched international hockey throughout the 1980s, and he was clearly behind Makarov and well behind Krutov too. If you don't value my opinion, well, the Soviet Player of the Year voters agreed with me (Larionov's voting record is by far the worst of the three). So did the IIHF Directorate and the Media who chose the best players by position and the All-Star team (again, Larionov's record by far the worst), respectively, at the World Championships.

I would even ask; did Larionov ever even nearly reach greatness in his career? I mean, he was mostly "a very good player" in the Soviet Union/Europe, and he was "a very good player" in the NHL too, nothing more, nothing less. I think the 1987-88 season was his best by far (got the Soviet Player of the Year award and had big Olympics), so maybe for that small moment in time he was "great".

PS. Oh yeah, good luck to him in his new post.

 

[Kshahdoo]

A little late here, but I just wanted to express what utter nonsense that claim is. Total revisionism.

People just seem to think that just because Larionov had the longest and probably the best NHL career of them of all, he suddenly was the best player back in the Soviet Union and in international competition too. I lived those times and watched international hockey throughout the 1980s, and he was clearly behind Makarov and well behind Krutov too. If you don't value my opinion, well, the Soviet Player of the Year voters agreed with me (Larionov's voting record is by far the worst of the three). So did the IIHF Directorate and the Media who chose the best players by position and the All-Star team (again, Larionov's record by far the worst), respectively, at the World Championships.

I would even ask; did Larionov ever even nearly reach greatness in his career? I mean, he was mostly "a very good player" in the Soviet Union/Europe, and he was "a very good player" in the NHL too, nothing more, nothing less. I think the 1987-88 season was his best by far (got the Soviet Player of the Year award and had big Olympics), so maybe for that small moment in time he was "great".

PS. Oh yeah, good luck to him in his new post.

I'd say, he was very good here and he was very good there, but overall he was great, like a player, who never was close to the best, but all of a sudden played like billion games and won almost everything (or even everything without almost).

 

[VMBM]

I'd say, he was very good here and he was very good there, but overall he was great, like a player, who never was close to the best, but all of a sudden played like billion games and won almost everything (or even everything without almost).

That's one way of looking at it.

Still, no one is ever claiming that, say, Ron Francis or Jean Ratelle (both great longevity) were better than Mike Bossy or Guy Lafleur (no great longevity).

 

[Lambo]

Be that as it may, Larionov still ranks 4th all time in NHL playoff scoring among over 30-year-olds. And that is not only assists, also goals he has more than all-time greats like Gretzky or Messier. This includes clutch ones like the 3OT game winner against Carolina in the 2002 finals, after already scoring an equalizer earlier in the game, or several winners against Colorado in the most heated playoff fixtures of the era. Makarov had his own special qualities and a longer career on top of Soviet hockey, for which he deserves full credit. But in the NHL he also mailed it in after only a handful of games, and the end of his career was a real downer.

He was 31 whan he begun in NHL. 424 Games and 384 Points are not very bad. We must to regard his Age and attune an total new system and hockey game. His entire career was fantastic. In SU, NT and NHL.

 

[Albatros]

Makarov never really gave a serious effort to adjust, he had a great start and then just started mailing it in dissatisfied with the style of play. For him it was about dollars, not NHL hockey, sad for a guy otherwise known for his ambition.

 

[vorky]

Makarov never really gave a serious effort to adjust, he had a great start and then just started mailing it in dissatisfied with the style of play. For him it was about dollars, not NHL hockey, sad for a guy otherwise known for his ambition.

It has always been about dollars and dollars only.

 

[Raistlin]

Larionov was an impact player

I guess Larionov is not famed for his on ice prowess but more for being an innovator, because this was before the iron curtain came down its easy to see a singular narrative being driven into the population by state media. But as the article shined a light on, the greatest hockey mind appreciated the brain over the hands and body mechanics. Just like most appreciated Bure and Fedorov over Mogilny, the brainiest and least pliable of the group and probably not something that USSR back then appreciates and wants to focus on.

Personally, I talked to Larionov at a signing event and was amazed at how learnt he was outside of hockey, we talked about identity and confines of equipment technology and he was very impressive. I came away remarking that he fully deserves the moniker "the Professor". I look forward to seeing him take over the reins from Bragin.

 

[wetcoast]

I think your statistic is a little misleading. Gretzky is the all-time leading goal scorer in Stanley Cup history, with 122 goals. Messier is second with 109. Larionov, on the other hand, after participating in the Stanley Cups for 14 years, only scored 30 goals. An average of a little over 2 goals per playoff season. He is not even in the top 50 all-time. Maybe in an over-30 or over-34 category age group, he shines more, but in comparison to Makarov and Krutov, I'll stick with the premise that his was more of a supporting role as a playmaker.

Sure but there is no denying how elite Igor was post age 33 when he returned to the NHL and led the team from 24 points to 82 and an excellent 2 rounds in the playoffs in 93-94.

He might not have the sizzle and eye test resume that many have but he was an excellent player for an extremely long time and that should mean something.

Time will tell what kind of coach he will become.