Theokritos
Global Moderator
- Apr 6, 2010
- 12,677
- 5,122
Let's Watch: 1972 Summit Series, Game 3/8
- Thread starter Theokritos
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
PrimumHockeyist
Registered User
- Apr 7, 2018
- 691
- 425
I wonder if others see Game 3 the same way as I do. When I pull back and look at the series as a whole, it is the game that stands out the least. Still, I remember.
To me, this was supposed to be the game when we built on Toronto, when our guys continued to figure out how to play as a group, after being caught off guard in Montreal. We had a narrative to believe in which, for a while, looked like it was indeed unfolding. Then the Soviets pushed back. Effectively. By the end of the game it was clear that we hadn't stamped them out after all. There was a vacuum, for there was no predictable narrative to fall back on. These were uncharted waters. I recall a sense of numbness from the latter part of the Winnipeg game all the way until Esposito told off the nation AFTER the Vancouver game.
To me, this was the Soviet's biggest victory, proving that they could hang with Canada from start to finish. That said, now that I'm older I realize that so much of the game 3-4 phase was due to conditioning. At the age of ten I didn't even know what fatigue was. I couldn't relate to the concept of players simply not having their legs under them. Boy, do I know now !
To me, this was supposed to be the game when we built on Toronto, when our guys continued to figure out how to play as a group, after being caught off guard in Montreal. We had a narrative to believe in which, for a while, looked like it was indeed unfolding. Then the Soviets pushed back. Effectively. By the end of the game it was clear that we hadn't stamped them out after all. There was a vacuum, for there was no predictable narrative to fall back on. These were uncharted waters. I recall a sense of numbness from the latter part of the Winnipeg game all the way until Esposito told off the nation AFTER the Vancouver game.
To me, this was the Soviet's biggest victory, proving that they could hang with Canada from start to finish. That said, now that I'm older I realize that so much of the game 3-4 phase was due to conditioning. At the age of ten I didn't even know what fatigue was. I couldn't relate to the concept of players simply not having their legs under them. Boy, do I know now !
PrimumHockeyist
Registered User
- Apr 7, 2018
- 691
- 425
Sinden's commentary about the turn in the Winnipeg game is below. First, to elaborate a little on what I said earlier, I wonder if it's valid to link the latter part of Game 3 with Game 4 Vancouver in terms of how both combined to affect the national mood.
That is, the mood shift that many remember as beginning in Game Four may have begun when the Soviets came back in Game 3, and TC could not push back. So, everybody is like, What's going on?? for the rest of Game 3 on AND for two days AND from the start of the Vancouver Game until Phil Esposito dumps water on Canada's collective head.
All I'm saying is that that would change the way this part of the series is traditionally viewed, where Canada's mood is seen to have started to sour sometime after Game Four's start in Vancouver, and then for 2-3 hours. If what I'm saying has any relevance, then the mood shift had lasted for closer to around 50 hours before the Vancouver game even started, and Game 4's booing becomes more about the same frustration and disillusionment since the second half of the Winnipeg game, rather than the events of Sept 8 only in Vancouver
Here's Sinden, writing on the same night as the Winnipeg game (which we can know because he talks about the game played "tonight" vs yesterday or a couple of days ago). I really like the way he speaks so candidly and positively about the Soviets, as this gives him cred - in my opinion - for when he mentions darker things about the Swedes and later the BS that keeps going :
That is, the mood shift that many remember as beginning in Game Four may have begun when the Soviets came back in Game 3, and TC could not push back. So, everybody is like, What's going on?? for the rest of Game 3 on AND for two days AND from the start of the Vancouver Game until Phil Esposito dumps water on Canada's collective head.
All I'm saying is that that would change the way this part of the series is traditionally viewed, where Canada's mood is seen to have started to sour sometime after Game Four's start in Vancouver, and then for 2-3 hours. If what I'm saying has any relevance, then the mood shift had lasted for closer to around 50 hours before the Vancouver game even started, and Game 4's booing becomes more about the same frustration and disillusionment since the second half of the Winnipeg game, rather than the events of Sept 8 only in Vancouver
Here's Sinden, writing on the same night as the Winnipeg game (which we can know because he talks about the game played "tonight" vs yesterday or a couple of days ago). I really like the way he speaks so candidly and positively about the Soviets, as this gives him cred - in my opinion - for when he mentions darker things about the Swedes and later the BS that keeps going :
Last edited:
reckoning
Registered User
- Jan 4, 2005
- 7,124
- 1,521
On both of the Soviets SHGs, Frank Mahovlich was the Canadian who lost the puck. He had been one of Canada's best players early in the series, but he was starting to unravel. Things would get worse in Game 4, then he'd end up being a healthy scratch for Games 6 and 7.
While everybody knows that Canada won or tied every game Serge Savard played in, there were two other players who appeared in the series, but didn't play in any games Canada lost: Stan Mikita and Wayne Cashman. They both played in Games 2 and 3, and that was it. Mikita seems a bit lacking in speed, so it's understandable why he was pulled, but I thought Cashman played very well digging out the puck along the boards and in the corners. Sinden benched him for Game 4 because he thought the referees were watching him too closely.
I thought Paul Henderson was Canada's best player in this game. He was starting to show what a force he would be in the series.
Interesting to note that in the pre-game introductions, Bobby Clarke was the Canadian who got the loudest cheers from the crowd, presumably because he's the only Manitoba-born player on the team. Were there many prominent NHLers from Manitoba in 1972?
While everybody knows that Canada won or tied every game Serge Savard played in, there were two other players who appeared in the series, but didn't play in any games Canada lost: Stan Mikita and Wayne Cashman. They both played in Games 2 and 3, and that was it. Mikita seems a bit lacking in speed, so it's understandable why he was pulled, but I thought Cashman played very well digging out the puck along the boards and in the corners. Sinden benched him for Game 4 because he thought the referees were watching him too closely.
I thought Paul Henderson was Canada's best player in this game. He was starting to show what a force he would be in the series.
Interesting to note that in the pre-game introductions, Bobby Clarke was the Canadian who got the loudest cheers from the crowd, presumably because he's the only Manitoba-born player on the team. Were there many prominent NHLers from Manitoba in 1972?
PrimumHockeyist
Registered User
- Apr 7, 2018
- 691
- 425
I have often thought that Canada won is series because its grinders, mainly.
Not "many", I would think. Not even close.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
58 players from Manitoba from 1959-60 to 1971-72. Notably...
Andy Bathgate, Eric Nesterenko, Ab McDonald, Pete Stemkowski, Ted Green, Dallas Smith, Ted Harris, Butch Goring, Reggie Leach, Bryan Hextall, and Terry Sawchuk...
Andy Bathgate, Eric Nesterenko, Ab McDonald, Pete Stemkowski, Ted Green, Dallas Smith, Ted Harris, Butch Goring, Reggie Leach, Bryan Hextall, and Terry Sawchuk...
VMBM
Hansel?!
Finally a good/even game in the series! In fact, after game 8, this is my favourite; a lots of exciting action & great plays.
Personally, it was an interesting game already since the Soviets' top line had Boris Mikhailov (instead of e.g. Vikulov) playing with Valeri Kharlamov and Alexander Maltsev. Since coach Bobrov did not put the famed Kharlamov-Petrov-Mikhailov line together - except for some occasional shifts/power plays - this was the next best thing. And IMO they played brilliantly; even though the so called Kid Line of Bodunov-Anisin-Lebedev actually scored two goals in the game, and the top line only one (Kharlamov), I still think KMM were the USSR's best line in the game and were responsible for most of team's chances... they were also responsible for missing a couple of great chances, but that's another story... Oh, and if anyone thinks that Kharlamov wasn't a huge factor after game 1, you should really watch this game!
Here are some of the top line's/Kharlamov's great plays in the game:
- They start out agressively and with a bang and Maltsev has a decent chance after Mikhailov's setup. They continue to pressure for the rest of the shift as well.
- They show some brilliant, crisp passing during a PP, and Mikhailov has the best chance, but Tony Esposito handles his backhand shot.
- Kharlamov's excellent setup for Mikhailov, but M's shot slightly misses the net (Foster Hewitt: "They're walking right in there!"
)
- Some pressure and a dangerous-looking play near the Canadian goal, and they earn a PP opportunity, but this time can't quite produce good scoring chances (terrific penalty-killing by Serge Savard there)
- Another brilliant setup by Kharlamov, this time for Maltsev, but Tony O again makes a good save.
- Kharlamov's terrific moves and a great pass to Maltsev, but Esposito either makes a super save or Maltsev slightly misses the net.
- Kharlamov's memorable short-handed goal after Mikhailov's well-timed pass off the boards. Brad Park just can't handle Kharlamov's speed.
- They put on a pressure inside Canada's zone; once again, it's mostly Kharlamov's speed and creativity that creates the chanches, this time for Maltsev but unfortunately he frozes a bit at the crucial moment and a great opportunity is missed.
- This time it's Maltsev and Mikhailov on the USSR's PP; the former sets up Mikhailov in front of the net, but the angle is not so great, so Tony O handles that (BTW, what is with Bergman and his constant stick-swinging and slashing?). Soon after this, though, they miss a truly great chance; I think Kharlamov is a little too unselfish there, as he is still looking for Mikhailov when he has a great scoring opportunity himself; anyhoo, the puck goes behind Esposito and trickles just past the goal, so the Canadians are fairly lucky there.
- An excellent rush again by Kharlamov, and a decent chance for the USSR follows. Listen to color guy Brian Conacher's high praise for Kharlamov after the play. Yup, he was their best player alright ("tonight" and overall too)...
- One final close call for the Soviets just near the end of the game; once again there's a rush by Kharlamov, but Mikhailov also contributes and Maltsev gets a chance in front of the net. Close, but no cicar, though.
Overall, as said, this was a fairly evenly played game, but the Soviets did have the better chances to get the game-winning goal in the 3rd period. Maybe this was due to the Canadians' conditioning, but they certainly weren't as badly gassed as in the 3rd period of the first game. Of the Canadians, again Serge Savard impressed me the most, but in this game, Bobby Clarke really started to show his playmaking skills and hockey smarts (in addition to his thuggery, of course); many good setups especially for Henderson. It was also good to see one of my favourites Jean Ratelle play pretty well after the fairly disasterous (for him and his line as well) first game.
Who would have guessed at this point that the following game would be arguably Team Canada's worst (at least in game 1 they were somehow in it until the second half of the 3rd period) and the Soviets' best in the series.
Personally, it was an interesting game already since the Soviets' top line had Boris Mikhailov (instead of e.g. Vikulov) playing with Valeri Kharlamov and Alexander Maltsev. Since coach Bobrov did not put the famed Kharlamov-Petrov-Mikhailov line together - except for some occasional shifts/power plays - this was the next best thing. And IMO they played brilliantly; even though the so called Kid Line of Bodunov-Anisin-Lebedev actually scored two goals in the game, and the top line only one (Kharlamov), I still think KMM were the USSR's best line in the game and were responsible for most of team's chances... they were also responsible for missing a couple of great chances, but that's another story... Oh, and if anyone thinks that Kharlamov wasn't a huge factor after game 1, you should really watch this game!
Here are some of the top line's/Kharlamov's great plays in the game:
- They start out agressively and with a bang and Maltsev has a decent chance after Mikhailov's setup. They continue to pressure for the rest of the shift as well.
- They show some brilliant, crisp passing during a PP, and Mikhailov has the best chance, but Tony Esposito handles his backhand shot.
- Kharlamov's excellent setup for Mikhailov, but M's shot slightly misses the net (Foster Hewitt: "They're walking right in there!"
)- Some pressure and a dangerous-looking play near the Canadian goal, and they earn a PP opportunity, but this time can't quite produce good scoring chances (terrific penalty-killing by Serge Savard there)
- Another brilliant setup by Kharlamov, this time for Maltsev, but Tony O again makes a good save.
- Kharlamov's terrific moves and a great pass to Maltsev, but Esposito either makes a super save or Maltsev slightly misses the net.
- Kharlamov's memorable short-handed goal after Mikhailov's well-timed pass off the boards. Brad Park just can't handle Kharlamov's speed.
- They put on a pressure inside Canada's zone; once again, it's mostly Kharlamov's speed and creativity that creates the chanches, this time for Maltsev but unfortunately he frozes a bit at the crucial moment and a great opportunity is missed.
- This time it's Maltsev and Mikhailov on the USSR's PP; the former sets up Mikhailov in front of the net, but the angle is not so great, so Tony O handles that (BTW, what is with Bergman and his constant stick-swinging and slashing?). Soon after this, though, they miss a truly great chance; I think Kharlamov is a little too unselfish there, as he is still looking for Mikhailov when he has a great scoring opportunity himself; anyhoo, the puck goes behind Esposito and trickles just past the goal, so the Canadians are fairly lucky there.
- An excellent rush again by Kharlamov, and a decent chance for the USSR follows. Listen to color guy Brian Conacher's high praise for Kharlamov after the play. Yup, he was their best player alright ("tonight" and overall too)...
- One final close call for the Soviets just near the end of the game; once again there's a rush by Kharlamov, but Mikhailov also contributes and Maltsev gets a chance in front of the net. Close, but no cicar, though.
Overall, as said, this was a fairly evenly played game, but the Soviets did have the better chances to get the game-winning goal in the 3rd period. Maybe this was due to the Canadians' conditioning, but they certainly weren't as badly gassed as in the 3rd period of the first game. Of the Canadians, again Serge Savard impressed me the most, but in this game, Bobby Clarke really started to show his playmaking skills and hockey smarts (in addition to his thuggery, of course); many good setups especially for Henderson. It was also good to see one of my favourites Jean Ratelle play pretty well after the fairly disasterous (for him and his line as well) first game.
Who would have guessed at this point that the following game would be arguably Team Canada's worst (at least in game 1 they were somehow in it until the second half of the 3rd period) and the Soviets' best in the series.
Last edited:
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,785
- 15,428
Until Europeans joined the NHL en masse the high end grinders did have a surprisingly effective role at the highest level of international hockey. I guess it's due to playing the game in such a different way than the Soviets would be used to facing. A guy like Ratelle was a great player, but the Soviet players would be familiar with playing against skilled and smart forwards.
This was probably the most watchable game from a solely hockey perspective. Excellent play from the Soviet and Canadian top lines. Fairly good goaltending despite the goals. Clarke starts emerging in this game and really begins winning his matchup consistently. I thought that this was Park's worst game.
PrimumHockeyist
Registered User
- Apr 7, 2018
- 691
- 425
Hi VMBM - If you are interested.... To what you and Jack Slater were saying, Canada's coach would have firmly agreed:
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
The Soviets puck movement on the first power play made Canada look foolish. (Around 28:30)
Soviet forecheck is really good in the 1st. Forced a lot of turnovers. Disrupted a lot of exits.
Pretty blatant trip leading to Ratelle's 2-1 goal
Interesting sequence at 56:35. Puck is put into an area. Watch CAN7 Esposito turn around, even though he's got a clear bead on that puck. He lets CAN12 Cournoyer come from underneath him to pick it up. Espo crosses back under Cournoyer and the Soviet d-man, but the pass gets disrupted. At first, I thought it was a really heads up play by Espo...and maybe it is, but man, does he time it all wrong and then doesn't manage the space very well. If Esposito gets up with Cournoyer, this is almost certainly a 4-1 goal. Instead, Esposito is more clever by half (and fast enough by even less) and the chance is blown.
Though, maybe it's natural, maybe it's from this...Canada starts to get wise to speed differential entries and NZ play.
Soviet forecheck is really good in the 1st. Forced a lot of turnovers. Disrupted a lot of exits.
Pretty blatant trip leading to Ratelle's 2-1 goal
Interesting sequence at 56:35. Puck is put into an area. Watch CAN7 Esposito turn around, even though he's got a clear bead on that puck. He lets CAN12 Cournoyer come from underneath him to pick it up. Espo crosses back under Cournoyer and the Soviet d-man, but the pass gets disrupted. At first, I thought it was a really heads up play by Espo...and maybe it is, but man, does he time it all wrong and then doesn't manage the space very well. If Esposito gets up with Cournoyer, this is almost certainly a 4-1 goal. Instead, Esposito is more clever by half (and fast enough by even less) and the chance is blown.
Though, maybe it's natural, maybe it's from this...Canada starts to get wise to speed differential entries and NZ play.
Theokritos
Global Moderator
- Apr 6, 2010
- 12,677
- 5,122
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,785
- 15,428
I remember reading that Bill Russell called Boston a hockey town even during the Celtics dynasty. Not sure if he included baseball in his thinking or was just comparing the sports that shared the Boston Garden.
@JackSlater
Celtics attendance during the dynasty years
1956-57 25 262,918 10,517
1957-58 29 240,943 8,308
1958-59 30 244,642 8,165
1959-60 27 209,374 7,755
1960-61 28 201,569 7,199
1961-62 28 191,855 6,852
1962-63 30 262,581 8,753
1963-64 30 223,347 7,445
1964-65 30 246,529 8,318
1965-66 31 246,189 7,941
1966-67 31 322,690 10,409
1967-68 37 320,788 8,670
1968-69 36 322,130 8,948
Red Sox
Bruins
