Let's Watch: 1972 Summit Series, Game 4/8

[Theokritos]

Game 1
Game 2
Game 3

With one win each and a tie in Game 3, the two teams head into the last game of the Canadian leg.

Jump to 14:25 for the opening faceoff.



TEAM CANADA:

Spoiler

Paul Henderson (19) – Bobby Clarke (28) – Ron Ellis (6)
Dennis Hull (10) / Vic Hadfield (11) – Phil Esposito (7) – Bill Goldsworthy (9) / Rod Gilbert (8)
Frank Mahovlich (27) – Gilbert Perreault (33) – Yvan Cournoyer (12)

Gary Bergman (2) – Brad Park (5)
Pat Stapleton (3) – Bill White (17)
Don Awrey (26) – Rod Seiling (16)

Tony Esposito (35)

TEAM USSR:

Spoiler

Valeri Kharlamov (17) – Alexander Maltsev (10) – Vladimir Vikulov (18)
Yuri Blinov (9) – Vladimir Petrov (16) – Boris Mikhailov (13)
Alexander Bodunov (24) – Vyacheslav Anisin (22) – Yuri Lebedev (23)
Alexander Yakushev (15), Vladimir Shadrin (19)

Alexander Ragulin (5) – Gennadi Tsygankov (7)
Vladimir Lutchenko (3) – Viktor Kuzkin (4)
Valeri Vasilyev (6) – Yevgeni Paladyev (26)

Vladislav Tretyak (20)

SCORE:

Spoiler

2:01 – 1-0 USSR (Boris Mikhailov, assists Vladimir Lutchenko and Vladimir Petrov)
7:29 – 2-0 USSR (Boris Mikhailov, assists Vladimir Lutchenko and Valeri Kharlamov)
25:37 – 2-1 Canada (Gilbert Perreault, assists Brad Park and Ken Dryden)
26:34 – 3-1 USSR (Yuri Blinov, assists Vladimir Petrov and Boris Mikhailov)
33:53 – 4-1 USSR (Vladimir Vikulov, assists Valeri Kharlamov and Alexander Maltsev)
46:54 – 4-2 Canada (Bill Goldsworthy, assists Phil Esposito and Brad Park)
51:05 – 5-2 USSR (Vladimir Shadrin, assists Alexander Yakushev and Valeri Vasilyev)
59:3 – 5-3 Canada (Dennis Hull, assists Phil Esposito and Bill Goldsworthy)

Note: Revised stats by Richard Bendell

Click to read more...

 

[frisco]

OK, I'm biased but more Gilbert Perreault. Come on!

My Best-Carey

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

On the 40th anniversary I hired this guy named Colin to help me make a little music vid piece. It was loaded to youtube where it sat for around 7 years before once day I got an email from youtube as in 1 of 2 below.

Youtube seemed to want to pull it because, as per their email, they found that it encourages illegal activities. Thinking that they must be wrong, I appealed and it was again rejected. Without further elaboration

So, I parked the video over on Vimeo. Lower your artistic expectations if you care to look. (You'll soon see why I see this as a Game Four'ish vid.) I would love to know if anyone can tell me how this 3 minute piece 'encourages illegal activities."

In the meanwhile, I will continue to find this Youtube exchange rather creepy.

​

1 of 2 As you may know, our Community Guidelines describe which content we allow – and don’t allow – on YouTube. Your video ""1972" - Ode to the Original Team Canada. By Mark Grant & Colin Sawatsky" was flagged for review. Upon review, we’ve determined that it violates our guidelines. We’ve removed it from YouTube and assigned a Community Guidelines strike, or temporary penalty, to your account.

Video content restrictions
We don't allow content that encourages illegal activities or incites users to violate YouTube's guidelines. The only depictions of such activities that we may allow need to be educational or documentary in nature and shouldn’t be designed to help or encourage others to imitate them.

When uploading a video, make sure to post as much information as possible in the title and description to help us and your viewers understand the primary purpose of the video. Learn more here.

2 of 2
Dear VBCnews,
Thank you for submitting your video appeal to YouTube. After further review, we've determined that your video is in violation of our Community Guidelines. Any associated penalties will remain on your account.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

Sinden's commentary after the game on the night of game Four.

After that one sees what he wrote afterwards a few days later, well before Sweden.

The second paste shows that, just a few years in, this 1957-58 this Soviet rivalry was already a big deal in Canada. It would be nice to hear from anyone who might remember those times and how the mood compared to 72...

Here's Sinden on his own playing days v the Soviets

Captain Harry, no less . . .

"The Canadian team also included captain and defenceman Harry Sinden, who went on to become coach and later general manager of the Boston Bruins. Sinden also coached Team Canada to victory over the Soviet Union in the historic Summit Series in 1972"

 

[reckoning]

This is where I can't understand Sinden's moves. Pete Mahovlich and Jean Ratelle both played well in Game 3, so he benches them for this game??

And I can't believe Bill Goldsworthy made his way back into the lineup after this disaster.

 

[VMBM]

Not much to say about this game; the USSR was the much better team. There has rarely been a game where the shots on goal (41-31 for Canada) give such a wrong impression. Like Sinden admitted, Canada was never in this game.

Random observations:

- Boris Mikhailov (2 g, 1 a) was arguably the player of the game; here is, for example, a shift where he and his line are almost toying with the opponents (Esposito's unit)... Esposito tellingly shakes his head when heading to the bench. However, with hindsight, game moments like these might have worked to the Soviets' disadvantage. Especially after game 5 - which they won maybe somewhat luckily - they might have had a kind of false security that the series was in the bag.

- Ken Dryden was extremely shaky, and although I can't name an actual bad goal that he let in, it was pretty damn near a couple of times; e.g. Mikhailov is on a rush and lets a long wrister go, and Dryden can't stop it properly; luckily for him, the rebound doesn't head towards the net. I mean, you know that a goalie is shaky when a shot from Mikhailov (certainly not known for possesing a big shot) from so far away gives him that much trouble. Even worse is when Dryden fails to glove Lutchenko's long and not overly hard shot, and the much-maligned Don Awrey (his second and I think last game in the series) seemingly saves his arse by stopping the puck from going in right at the goal-line.

- Vic Hadfield's desperate 'golf swing' (and the crowd's reaction to it) at the end of yet another bad shift somehow symbolizes the Canadian frustration in the game.

- Gil Perreault was pretty much the only highlight for Team Canada, and his rush on the goal he scored was a beauty. But occasionally even his rushes produced some bad turnovers too.

- What lazy/poor defending by the Soviets on Canada's 3-5 consolation goal! With a little more effort, they (Petrov et co) could have easily prevented that. Not that it mattered anything in this game, but unfortunately for the USSR, this would not be the last case of weak defensive play in the series.

 

[Theokritos]

The second paste shows that, just a few years in, this 1957-58 this Soviet rivalry was already a big deal in Canada. It would be nice to hear from anyone who might remember those times and how the mood compared to 72...

I wasn't around back then, but from what I've read:

The big upset was 1954 when the Soviets first took part in a World Championship and beat Canada 7-2. That outcome blindsided Canada, a bit like Game 1 of the Summit Series. But at least the Canadians could, rightfully, point out that they had only sent a senior B club, so the mood was more hopeful for 1955 when the Allen Cup winning Penticton Vees were sent to Europe. And they did restore Canada's pride with a 5-0 win over the Soviets, as discussed here.

But at the 1956 Olympics (when Canada was repesented by a weaker entry again) the Soviets had the upper hand once more. The next opportunity for Canada to get even would have been at the 1957 World Championship, but that one was hosted by the Sovie Union and the NATO countries refused to go there. Then, in autumn 1957, the Soviet team first toured Canada. The tour got a lot of attention after what had happened in 1954 and 1956. Canadian newspapers where filled with opinions on the strange way the Soviets trained and played, with some praising them and some talking them down. Result-wise, they first struggled but then cruised to a winning record on their tour, as mentioned out by Harry Sinden himself. (The Soviets themselves, by the way, used the opportunity to attend their first-ever NHL games. More here: How the Soviets Discovered the NHL: First-Hand Accounts From Their Visits to Canada in 1957 and 1960)

So when Sinden's club went to Europe in 1958 there was a lot of excitement again (though not as much as in 1955) and also some uncertainty. But Whitby did manage to restore the world order again and so did the Canadian entries in the following years – until the dynasty years of the Soviets in international hockey began in 1963.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

I wasn't around back then, but from what I've read:

The big upset was 1954 when the Soviets first took part in a World Championship and beat Canada 7-2. That outcome blindsided Canada, a bit like Game 1 of the Summit Series. But at least the Canadians could, rightfully, point out that they had only sent a senior B club, so the mood was more hopeful for 1955 when the Allen Cup winning Penticton Vees were sent to Europe. And they did restore Canada's pride with a 5-0 win over the Soviets, as discussed here.

Thank you for the link. I will definitely watch that hockey game soon. I read the essay you mentioned too, very interesting (How the Soviets Discovered the NHL: First-Hand Accounts From Their Visits to Canada in 1957 and 1960).

If 54 is the starting point of 'the rivalry' - and it probably should be - then 72 was 18 years in the making. I was just ten and the Sapporo Olympics were on then, in early 72. I hadn't known about the Olympics then. I liked the idea of international competition but soon noted that we were not competitive in hardly anything. Then I heard that there would be ice hockey. Got all excited, only to learn that Canada wouldn't be playing.

And then I learned why... After year upon year of the IIHF and Olympics turning their tournaments into shams, it's hard to not think that Canadian hockey fans would have been angry long before 72. Here's what the IIHF had to say about that on the occasion of their 100th anniversary:

Story #17 - PROTESTING AMATEUR RULES, CANADA LEAVES INTERNATIONAL HOCKEY

With revisionist spin like this, I won't be expecting the IIHF to explain what we "couldn't understand" about this anytime soon.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

This is where I can't understand Sinden's moves. Pete Mahovlich and Jean Ratelle both played well in Game 3, so he benches them for this game??

And I can't believe Bill Goldsworthy made his way back into the lineup after this disaster.

Personally, I have wondered why Cashman didn't play instead of Goldsworthy. Not to diss Goldsworthy, but Cashman seemed like a more intelligent-effective version of the same kind of 'North American' player that Sinden clearly wanted in Game Four.

I did feel especially bad for Goldsworthy after the way he was treated by people at the Vancouver game. While the whole team got wrongly boo'ed, he would have been the easiest target from early on.

This is somebody celebrating on the bench after Henderson's game winner in Game Eight. I think it may be Goldworthy. Among others, he's probably thinking about those people who boo'ed him and the team in Vancouver. If so, good for him.

 

[Theokritos]

Here's what the IIHF had to say about that on the occasion of their 100th anniversary:

Story #17 - PROTESTING AMATEUR RULES, CANADA LEAVES INTERNATIONAL HOCKEY
View attachment 574424

With revisionist spin like this, I won't be expecting the IIHF to explain what we "couldn't understand" about this anytime soon.

I don't see the revisionist spin you're sensing. Maybe there is something about the phrasing that makes it sound weird to English native speakers? It says Canadians couldn't understand that they were not even allowed to use a handful of former NHLers while the top European roster were stocked with full-time professionals. To me that sentence is obviously constructed in a manner that makes readers go: "Yes, that's unfair and not understandable."

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

I don't see the revisionist spin you're sensing. Maybe there is something about the phrasing that makes it sound weird to English native speakers?

I'm not sure about the native English effect. But the 100th anniversary essays were intended for an international audience and one much younger than the ones who lived through this era. They might not know how well aware Canadians were of this policy, nor how long the IIHF and Olympics went along with it.

It says Canadians couldn't understand that they were not even allowed to use a handful of former NHLers while the top European roster were stocked with full-time professionals. To me that sentence is obviously constructed in a manner that makes readers go: "Yes, that's unfair and not understandable."

I understand your take, and maybe it's just me, but to me it reads like the IIHF is doing everything they can to not own its earlier decisions which created and perpetuated this problem that lead to Canada walking from the IIHF's With that in mind, I would have preferred someting more explicit, "It says Canadians couldn't understand why the IIHF would not allow them to use a handful of former NHLers while the IIHF knowingly allowed the top European roster to be were stocked with full-time professionals."

But that can't work either, since Canadians understood fully well what the problem was, as the writer of that piece must surely know.

Everybody knew back then. At some point in the 1950s, the Olympics abandoned its pledge to uphold amateurism, and the IIHF and other organizations followed along. This wasn't the only theatre where this sort of thing took place, of course. But in Canada's case it stung because the stage was was hockey, and probably also because Canada had helped build the IIHF brand by for decades before they finally walked away.

The bright spot is that the Canada Cups and World Cups came along. True best-on-best tournaments. Maybe one day they'll start giving out Platinum medals to whomever wins one of those tournaments, a Stanley Cup and a best-on-best OIympic hockey gold.

 

[reckoning]

And of course, you can't talk about Game 4 without mentioning the famous part: Phil Esposito's post-game interview with Johnny Esaw.

A lot of people have criticized him for it, but I loved it. He often comes across as somewhat egotistical, but here he sounds completely sincere and speaking from the heart. You would never hear a player do that today; if they did they'd get absolutely roasted on social media. So it was nice hearing an athlete express how he truly felt without worrying about the fallout.

The fans were booing because the media had led them to believe the Soviets didn't stand a chance, and when it turned out that wasn't the case, a lot of fans assumed Canada wasn't giving a full effort. That seemed to be what offended him the most.

Keep in mind that the players weren't getting paid for this (Espo mentions pension money, but we all know how Eagleson managed that). When he said "We came here because we love our country", it's hard not to want to support him after that.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

"The fans were booing because the media had led them to believe the Soviets didn't stand a chance, and when it turned out that wasn't the case, a lot of fans assumed Canada wasn't giving a full effort. That seemed to be what offended him the most."


Quite correct but in my opinion there was something else subtler going on with the public reaction in Canada. I think it was in The Game that Ken Dryden wrote about how the league had to accommodate the new expansion teams when they entered the league in 1967-68. As this take goes, the NHL did so by loosening the rules and allowing for thuggery to even things up which, as I may recall Dryden saying, reached its 'cynical' worst in the Flyer Cup years. By the end of the 1971-72 season this trend, if it was a trend, was well underway.

There have always been hockey fans who hate that style of play passionately, and I think this is one of the less recognized things about the Vancouver game, personally. After a disappointing collapse after the Winnipeg game, and a couple of full days to contemplate Game Three's implications, a lot of fans were reminded of the 'trend' early and twice, very directly, when Bill Goldsworthy of expansion Minnesota crossed the line.

In this context, I see a lot of Canadians over the first four games being supportive of the Soviets' style of play. The politeness, the applause was largely an endorsement of their passing, skating and conditioning and as such, an indirect expression of frustration for the way the NHL games were often played, as largely imposed by the NHL owners.

What such thinking doesn't address is why some of the people at the Vancouver game were boo'ing TC72 before the game even started. I figure that those who did probably had it in for Team Canada before the series was announced, and wanted Russia to win period. Knowing that the Russians were trending so positively after Game Three surely made them feel that their hopes would not fail, especially with the more well conditioned Soviets soon returning to Moscow on larger ice. Some pre-game drinks at nearby pubs on Hastings Street may have fueled their certainty even further. What better way to express such conviction before, during and after, Game Four than to make sure that Canada's Vancouver supporters had to hear them from start to finish.

I have often thought about those people, and how they all felt when Paul Henderson scored his third straight game winning goal in Moscow.

I couldn't say enough positive things about Phil Esposito, personally. He said what needed to be said and imo he was right top to bottom. It was awesome to see the way he flipped the post game script. I don't think anybody saw that coming. Espo is an example of a Summit Series hero whose contributions have tended to be overshadowed by Henderson and future generation's bias towards game winning goals etc. He became the leader of TC72, imo, which is a trait doesn't show up so easily on the stat sheet. Quite plausible that he became that by acclimation as a direct consequence of the Esaw interview. It was all too perfect, given the way things unfolded after he spoke.

 

[NyQuil]

Espo is an example of a Summit Series hero whose contributions have tended to be overshadowed by Henderson and future generation's bias towards game winning goals etc. He became the leader of TC72, imo, which is a trait doesn't show up so easily on the stat sheet. Quite plausible that he became that by acclimation as a direct consequence of the Esaw interview. It was all too perfect, given the way things unfolded after he spoke.

I don’t necessarily agree here.

Esposito was fairly prominent throughout the ‘72 series, whether it’s the interview speech, tripping on the flower on Russian ice and bowing to the crowd, inviting his opponent to fight with his fist gestures or deliberately winning the ceremonial face off in Moscow.

He’s not a guy that I think has been lost to history.

In 2002, it was Mario Lemieux who carried the team to the Final where Joe Sakic had his memorable performance, snagging the MVP in the process.

His line with Steve Yzerman and Paul Kariya did a lot of the heavy lifting up to that point in the close games.

Casuals will always remember the big play (Crosby’s golden goal in 2010 came after a relatively quiet overall tournament performance) but hockey fans will remember the roles played by other players.

I don’t think specific generations have anything to do with it.

 

[JackSlater]

Yeah I don't think that Esposito's Summit Series performance is forgotten at all. After Henderson he is generally the most prominent Canadian player in terms of discussion of that series. The one player I'd say is somewhat forgotten, in terms of that series, is Park, who was easily the best defenceman in the series and critical for Canada. Upon looking it up, the official stats had Park at 1g 4a but the more accurate re-assessed stats had him at 2g 7a, which is going to be a huge difference to anyone taking a glance at the score sheets. I'd say that Clarke is forgotten somewhat, in that his slash is pretty much a hockey meme but I'm not sure how many people know that he played excellent hockey and was a huge part of Henderson's success.

Not sure who the forgotten Soviets would be. Kharlamov and Yakushev became legends in Canada, as did Tretiak even though his goaltending wasn't particularly good in the series. Maybe Shadrin, who was quite good but you never hear about.

For this game, USSR played well and pretty much took Canada out behind the woodshed. Game was pretty much over half way through with the Soviets skating very well.

Also regarding Esposito, for better or worse his game four speech is one of the most famous speeches in Canadian history. If the Summit Series were to receive a "Miracle" style film from Disney, presumably from the Canadian perspective, Esposito would have to be one of the most prominent characters in the film, likely with Henderson and Clarke.

 

[NyQuil]

Also regarding Esposito, for better or worse his game four speech is one of the most famous speeches in Canadian history. If the Summit Series were to receive a "Miracle" style film from Disney, presumably from the Canadian perspective, Esposito would have to be one of the most prominent characters in the film, likely with Henderson and Clarke.

Renewed interest in his speech was also sparked by the Wayne Gretzky rant in 2002 at the Salt Lake City Olympics, where he famously defended Team Canada's players from criticism in a post-game press conference by implying that the world wanted to see them lose.

At the time, it was often compared with the Esposito speech in 1972.

 

[JackSlater]

Renewed interest in his speech was also sparked by the Wayne Gretzky rant in 2002 at the Salt Lake City Olympics, where he famously defended Team Canada's players from criticism in a post-game press conference by implying that the world wanted to see them lose.

At the time, it was often compared with the Esposito speech in 1972.

True, that is the common comparison. I love the Gretzky speech because it feels like the only time we ever saw Gretzky the competitor off the ice.

 

[reckoning]

Yeah I don't think that Esposito's Summit Series performance is forgotten at all. After Henderson he is generally the most prominent Canadian player in terms of discussion of that series. The one player I'd say is somewhat forgotten, in terms of that series, is Park, who was easily the best defenceman in the series and critical for Canada. Upon looking it up, the official stats had Park at 1g 4a but the more accurate re-assessed stats had him at 2g 7a, which is going to be a huge difference to anyone taking a glance at the score sheets. I'd say that Clarke is forgotten somewhat, in that his slash is pretty much a hockey meme but I'm not sure how many people know that he played excellent hockey and was a huge part of Henderson's success.

Not sure who the forgotten Soviets would be. Kharlamov and Yakushev became legends in Canada, as did Tretiak even though his goaltending wasn't particularly good in the series. Maybe Shadrin, who was quite good but you never hear about.

For this game, USSR played well and pretty much took Canada out behind the woodshed. Game was pretty much over half way through with the Soviets skating very well.

Also regarding Esposito, for better or worse his game four speech is one of the most famous speeches in Canadian history. If the Summit Series were to receive a "Miracle" style film from Disney, presumably from the Canadian perspective, Esposito would have to be one of the most prominent characters in the film, likely with Henderson and Clarke.

In 2006 the CBC did a very good two-part movie about the Summit Series. The main characters were Sinden, Esposito, Clarke, Henderson, Dryden, Ferguson and Eagleson. The actor who played Ken Dryden looked exactly like him. To me, the weak part of the film was the actor playing Esposito. When he did the post-game 4 speech, it didn't come close to matching the real thing.

An interesting trivia note about the movie (aside from Wayne Cashman being played by a then-unknown Gerry Dee) was that Canadian actor Booth Savage played Harry Sinden in the film, then a few years in the film about Don Cherry he played Sinden again. It must be rare for an actor to play the same role in two different films that weren't sequels.

 

[JackSlater]

In 2006 the CBC did a very good two-part movie about the Summit Series. The main characters were Sinden, Esposito, Clarke, Henderson, Dryden, Ferguson and Eagleson. The actor who played Ken Dryden looked exactly like him. To me, the weak part of the film was the actor playing Esposito. When he did the post-game 4 speech, it didn't come close to matching the real thing.

An interesting trivia note about the movie (aside from Wayne Cashman being played by a then-unknown Gerry Dee) was that Canadian actor Booth Savage played Harry Sinden in the film, then a few years in the film about Don Cherry he played Sinden again. It must be rare for an actor to play the same role in two different films that weren't sequels.

I sort of remember that CBC produced something about the Summit Series. Regarding the same actor playing Sinden, that reminds me of the guy playing Rocket Richard in the Heritage Minute then playing Richard again in the CBC movie "The Rocket". I suppose those guys are all just part of the Canadian Television Extended Universe.

 

[Fenway]

The game in Vancouver on Friday capped off a very emotional week in sports history because after Game 2 in Toronto this happened at the Olympics.



No city in the US covered the Summit Series better than Boston.

On Saturday, September 9th we all sat back to enjoy Team USA crushing the USSR in basketball for Olympic Gold......


AND THIS HAPPENED



I was a complete basket case

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

Esposito was fairly prominent throughout the ‘72 series, whether it’s the interview speech, tripping on the flower on Russian ice and bowing to the crowd, inviting his opponent to fight with his fist gestures or deliberately winning the ceremonial face off in Moscow.

He’s not a guy that I think has been lost to history.
.....

Casuals will always remember the big play (Crosby’s golden goal in 2010 came after a relatively quiet overall tournament performance) but hockey fans will remember the roles played by other players.

I don’t think specific generations have anything to do with it.

I like your distinction between hockey fans and 'casuals'. I seem to remember Theo Fleury playing very well in 02.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

In 2006 the CBC did a very good two-part movie about the Summit Series. The main characters were Sinden, Esposito, Clarke, Henderson, Dryden, Ferguson and Eagleson. The actor who played Ken Dryden looked exactly like him. To me, the weak part of the film was the actor playing Esposito. When he did the post-game 4 speech, it didn't come close to matching the real thing.

An interesting trivia note about the movie (aside from Wayne Cashman being played by a then-unknown Gerry Dee) was that Canadian actor Booth Savage played Harry Sinden in the film, then a few years in the film about Don Cherry he played Sinden again. It must be rare for an actor to play the same role in two different films that weren't sequels.

Here's the film, called Canada Russia '72

I enjoyed the film, but was put off by the invention of scenes that were completely unnecessary. The first that comes to mind was around 28:20, when the Canadians watch the Soviets practise for the first time in Montreal, just after they arrived. The writers have Kharlamov shooting a puck up at the Canadian players. Never happened.

I asked a friend of Pat Stapleton's about this, named David, who ran the TC72 Facebook site and maybe still does. David asked Pat and told me that Pat doesn't remember anything like that happening, as he surely would have.

A couple of other things that Pat didn't remember happening were the Canadians sitting out on the ice after Game 8, drinking beer (although that would have been a great idea). Nor does he recall any Soviet entering the Canadian locker room and offer TC Canada a trophy. Nor did he recall Phil Esposito have somebody give the player - Yakushev? - a stick in return.

Because those things never happened. Here's what took place after Game 8, according to Sinden who writes below as the post-game/series celebration continues. The first part provides confirmation that there was no drinking in the arena after the game, the second part paints a very different picture than the fictionalized account. "Gresko" was one of the Soviets' lead management guys, fyi, sort of like Eagleson.

The Summit Series was entertaining enough. Why some artists feel the need to embellish this kind of stuff is beyond me. All this kind of BS does is confuse future generations.

While I'm on the subject of embellishment I might as well point out a couple of other things about the IIHF's revisionist presentation of why Canada left international hockey earlier in this thread.
A main problem, as the 2008 IIHF puts it, boils down Canadians not being able to cope with the fact that the rest of the hockey world is getting better, namely the Europeans:

So, according to the IIHF in 2008, Canadians (a) "couldn't understand" - as a society - why some Europeans were allowed to use professionals in theirs and the IOC's tournaments," and (b) couldn't cope with the fact that Europe's best (usually professiona) teams were becoming or had become better than our amateurs.

Then, they put all of the responsibility for the IIHF playing along on Avery Brundage:

"He made us do it, people."

Where's the accountability?

I presume that this lame and misleading essay was reviewed by René Fasel before it was published, since he ran the IIHF at the time of its publication.

.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

The game in Vancouver on Friday capped off a very emotional week in sports history because after Game 2 in Toronto this happened at the Olympics.

AND THIS HAPPENED



I was a complete basket case

I remember that basketball game well. In my personal opinion, it may have inspired the closest thing that Americans have, as a nation, to the kind of nationalism that is linked to hockey in Canada. The Miracle on Ice was fabulous, but not expected. Basketball was different. The expectation was to win, win, win.

If I recall, that loss sat with the USA for 16 years. Is that correct? It wasn't until Seoul in 88 when the USA finally got an Olympic rematch with the Soviets. I remember thinking, "It's revenge time. The Americans have Danny Manning and David Robinson, two # 1 picks and 7 footers at that!" At a time when really athletic bigs weren't common.

Man, was I ever wrong. It was ridiculous how one-sided that game was, and how Sabonis just controlled things.

Gone were the days when college ball could compete with Europe's best.

Sounded all rather familiar.

 

[Fenway]

I remember that basketball game well. In my personal opinion, it may have inspired the closest thing that Americans have, as a nation, to the kind of nationalism that is linked to hockey in Canada. The Miracle on Ice was fabulous, but not expected. Basketball was different. The expectation was to win, win, win.

If I recall, that loss sat with the USA for 16 years. Is that correct? It wasn't until Seoul in 88 when the USA finally got an Olympic rematch with the Soviets. I remember thinking, "It's revenge time. The Americans have Danny Manning and David Robinson, two # 1 picks and 7 footers at that!" At a time when really athletic bigs weren't common.

Man, was I ever wrong. It was ridiculous how one-sided that game was, and how Sabonis just controlled things.

Gone were the days when college ball could compete with Europe's best.

Sounded all rather familiar.

4 years later came 'The Dream Team'

To this day the 1972 silver medals remain unclaimed.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

4 years later came 'The Dream Team'

To this day the 1972 silver medals remain unclaimed.

That 72 hoops game strikes so many parallels but also differences between Canada and the Summit Series....

The result stung USA as a nation.. But all in one night, whereas Canada's hockey sting Canada was much longer and more simmering, arguably going back to 54 but not long afterwards, if shamateurism was a common element.

Then again, your pros set things straight in 92, much like we had thought we would in hockey in 72. What the USA had to endure instead, was sixteen years of waiting for revenge according to the old formula, only to learn that by 88 college all-stars could no longer defend the gold like they had for so long.

The worlds of hockey and hoops are a much better places today, now that so many nations have elite world-class players. How we got to this point was rather bizarre.

But here we are!