Let's Watch: 1972 Summit Series, Game 6/8

[Theokritos]

Game 1
Game 2
Game 3
Game 4
Game 5

Canada is down 1-3-1 with only three games to play .... so the series, is basically over, right? Let's see.

Jump to 9:15 for opening-faceoff.



TEAM USSR:

Spoiler

Valeri Kharlamov (17) – Alexander Maltsev (10) – Vladimir Vikulov (18)
Alexander Yakushev (15) – Vladimir Shadrin (19) – Alexei Volchkov (30)
Alexander Bodunov (24), Vyacheslav Anisin (22) – Yuri Lebedev (23)
Vladimir Petrov (16), Boris Mikhailov (13)

Alexander Ragulin (5) – Gennadi Tsygankov (7)
Yuri Lyapkin (25) – Vladimir Lutchenko (3)
Yuri Shatalov (14) – Valeri Vasilyev (6)

Vladislav Tretyak (20)

TEAM CANADA:

Spoiler

Paul Henderson (19) – Bobby Clarke (28) – Ron Ellis (6)
Jean-Paul Parisé (22) – Phil Esposito (7) – Yvan Cournoyer (12)
Dennis Hull (10) – Jean Ratelle (18) – Rod Gilbert (8)
Pete Mahovlich (20), Red Berenson (15)

Guy Lapointe (25) – Serge Savard (23)
Gary Bergman (2) – Brad Park (5)
Pat Stapleton (3) – Bill White (17)

Ken Dryden (29)

SCORE:

Spoiler

21:12 – 1-0 USSR (Yuri Lyapkin, assist Vladimir Shadrin)
25:13 – 1-1 Canada (Dennis Hull, assists Rod Gilbert and Bill White)
26:21 – 1-2 Canada (Yvan Cournoyer, assits Red Berenson and Pat Stapleton)
26:36 – 1-3 Canada (Paul Henderson)
37:11 – 2-3 USSR (Alexander Yakushev, assists Vladimir Shadrin and Yuri Lyapkin)

Note: Revised stats by Richard Bendell

Click to read more...

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

The Moscow narrative continues to unfold in a way that I was so sure wouldn't happen after Vancouver - what with the superior conditioned Soviets playing on larger ice, and on home ice; the NHL's players' unfamiliarity with the larger ice; how things had gone in 3 and 4..

Coach Harry Sinden writes this after Game Six.

Sinden's aforementioned description of that practise before game 5 may be of greater historical note than one might think otherwise, for possibly revealing how the Canadians 'hacked' the Soviets game.

Until reading that passage I had always just heard that the players had become very confident, never why. "They found their legs." "They began coming together as a team." Sinden's passage suggests something specific: he had the players flood the other team's end. It could make an interesting discussion as to how that strategy might have affected other things besides defence, like the Soviets' breakout.

If the Soviets were unfamiliar with this particular kind of disruption it would have taken them time to adapt. Maybe nobody in Europe had ever dared try that, especially on the late 60's Soviets teams. Perhaps the Canadian players saw how Sinden's solution was working in 5 and 6, and gained confidence from that particular remedy.

 

[JackSlater]

I found that the Soviets faded as the series went on more than the Canadians showed a marked improvement. Not faded in terms of the whole game, but there seemed to be lulls in play for USSR that weren't there in the earlier games, and I se that in game six. I also found it interesting that Clarke's slash happened in this game when Kharlamov had seemed a lot more threatening earlier in the series. Perhaps a case of desperation as Clarke was needed to face more than one line.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

I found that the Soviets faded as the series went on more than the Canadians showed a marked improvement. Not faded in terms of the whole game, but there seemed to be lulls in play for USSR that weren't there in the earlier games, and I se that in game six. I also found it interesting that Clarke's slash happened in this game when Kharlamov had seemed a lot more threatening earlier in the series. Perhaps a case of desperation as Clarke was needed to face more than one line.

Isn't there a story where either Ferguson or someone confirms that the slash was intended? I seem to remember Clarke saying that it was an unpremeditated action, a reaction to jousting that was going on between the two.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

Sinden keeps going on about the reffing in Game Six, on the night of the game. I now wonder if the two quick goals were a direct result of Sinden's new strategy of flooding the zone.

The next day....

So, Eagleson went through this BEFORE he went nuts in Game 8 after Cournoyer made the score 5-5!

An interesting historical note about Bobrov, for those who won't know. He was the MVP of the IIHF 1954 tournament when the Soviets first appeared in international ice hockey and defeated Canada in the final.

 

[JackSlater]

Isn't there a story where either Ferguson or someone confirms that the slash was intended? I seem to remember Clarke saying that it was an unpremeditated action, a reaction to jousting that was going on between the two.

I know that anyone believes that it just happened. The common story seems to be that Ferguson told Clarke to do it, and he didn't have to tell him twice.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

It looks like the more widely known scenario is the correct one: Here's the Montreal Gazette quoting Ferguson

Years later, assistant coach John Ferguson admitted: “I called Clarke over to the bench, looked over at Kharlamov and said: ‘I think he needs a tap on the ankle.’ I didn’t think twice about it. It was Us vs. Them. And Kharlamov was killing us. I mean, somebody had to do it, and I sure wasn’t going to ask Henderson.”

On his part, Clarke always has insisted he doesn’t recall Ferguson telling him this, but added: “If I hadn’t learned to lay on a two-hander once in a while, I’d never have left Flin Flon.”

If Clarke did ever explain the slash as incidental, it would be very hard to justify given how he had to approach VK, from well behind, in order to deliver The Slash.

Note - Just found this video where the slash is discussed by Ferguson and Clarke:


To what Clarke said about Flin Flon, however, I agree. From junior and likely earlier, every time Clarke stepped onto the ice he personally faced the same threat level. The NHL surely had a lot to do with that, given the times and how the NHL's style of play is emulated at lower levels in general. In that regard the NHL discreetly imposed the violence that Clarke grew up playing in, which had to have a conditioning effect on him.

I'm not making excuses for him, but another thing about Clarke is that he really performed well in the Summit Series overall. I think he was one of our best players. Furthermore, he was such a good player that he was made the captain of Team Canada in 1976, on what many say was the best hockey team ever assembled.

Another thing which is clear is that Bobby Clarke delivered the Russian fans something that they could hang their hats on for eternity: a legitimate reason to believe that their team would have won the Summit Series, had their best player been healthy from start to finish.

I have sometimes wondered if a national karmic debt was incurred when The Slash took place. If so, one 'related' possibility is that the hockey gods called the debt due in 1998.

 

[JackSlater]

It looks like the more widely known scenario is the correct one: Here's the Montreal Gazette quoting Ferguson

Years later, assistant coach John Ferguson admitted: “I called Clarke over to the bench, looked over at Kharlamov and said: ‘I think he needs a tap on the ankle.’ I didn’t think twice about it. It was Us vs. Them. And Kharlamov was killing us. I mean, somebody had to do it, and I sure wasn’t going to ask Henderson.”

On his part, Clarke always has insisted he doesn’t recall Ferguson telling him this, but added: “If I hadn’t learned to lay on a two-hander once in a while, I’d never have left Flin Flon.”

If Clarke did ever explain the slash as incidental, it would be very hard to justify given how he had to approach VK, from well behind, in order to deliver The Slash.


To what Clarke said about Flin Flon, however, I agree. From junior and likely earlier, every time Clarke stepped onto the ice he personally faced the same threat level. The NHL surely had a lot to do with that, given the times and how the NHL's style of play is emulated at lower levels in general. In that regard the NHL discreetly imposed the violence that Clarke grew up playing in, which had to have a conditioning effect on him.

I'm not making excuses for him, but another thing about Clarke is that he really performed well in the Summit Series overall. I think he was one of our best players. Furthermore, he was such a good player that he was made the captain of Team Canada in 1976, on what many say was the best hockey team ever assembled.

Another thing which is clear is that Bobby Clarke delivered the Russian fans something that they could hang their hats on for eternity: a legitimate reason to believe that their team would have won the Summit Series, had their best player been healthy from start to finish.

I have sometimes wondered if a national karmic debt was incurred when The Slash took place. If so, one 'related' possibility is that the hockey gods called the debt due in 1998.

I'd say that Clarke is at worst the third best Canadian forward in the series, and honestly I'd put him at 2 behind Esposito. His play is overshadowed by the slash but he was great defensively in several games and played a huge role in Henderson's scoring.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

I'd say that Clarke is at worst the third best Canadian forward in the series, and honestly I'd put him at 2 behind Esposito. His play is overshadowed by the slash but he was great defensively in several games and played a huge role in Henderson's scoring.

This is about my recollection of how Clarke fits in. He certainly produced in both ways. Given his reputation as a worker, I would wager that he arrived in training camp ready to go.

Ellis was also a contributor of consequence who deserves mention here.

 

[Big Phil]

Henderson says he can recall Ellis basically with his head down in the penalty box with two minutes left just begging Canada to hang onto a 3-2 lead. They did. He said Ellis would have blamed himself if they had tied it. At this point you could do the math. A tie game in Game 6 means Canada needs to win the last two just to TIE the series, which would have been awkward.

Red Berenson plays in this game, and gets an assist. I want to say Frank Mahovlich is sitting out Game 6 just based off of memory. Then Berenson sits Game 7, and they bring in Goldsworthy. Hmmm. Not sure why. Frank Mahovlich sits Game 7 as well, but is back Game 8 while the other two are not. Who knows, maybe the shifting of players threw the Russians off. But man, that's a big risk switching them up like that. At that point I would think the line up you had in Game 6 might have paid off.

Also, Dryden plays quite easily his best game here. He's solid. And yet they bring in Tony O for Game 7 and Dryden again - after Tony played well - for Game 8. I have always felt Sinden was all over the map with his goalie/player selections per game. Maybe it was intentional, I don't know.

This is about my recollection of how Clarke fits in. He certainly produced in both ways. Given his reputation as a worker, I would wager that he arrived in training camp ready to go.

Ellis was also a contributor of consequence who deserves mention here.

Ellis rarely gets the credit he deserves for helping shut down Kharlamov after Game 1. That was the key to the series as much as anything, I think.

 

[reckoning]

Harry Sinden made four lineup changes for this game, and they all paid off:

- Serge Savard was healthy enough to play, so he was in and Selling was out. Easy call.

- Ken Dryden gets another start in goal, which may have seemed dubious considering his first two appearances, but he finally delivered the solid steady netminding that Canada needed.

- Dennis Hull replaces Frank Mahovlich. Mahovlich had played poorly in Game 5, but he was still one of the most popular players on the team, and it was a gutsy move for Sinden to scratch him. Dennis Hull wasn't the Hull they wanted, but he settled in nicely on the third line with Ratelle and Gilbert for the rest of the series.

- And the move that still gets criticized to this day, Gil Perreau!t is replaced by Red Berenson. Berenson was outstanding in this game; not only did he score a goal, but he contributed some fine penalty killing in a game where Canada was short-handed a lot. I'm doubtful they win the game without him.

A few other notes:

- This was Phil Esposito's worst showing of the series. He takes two unnecessary undisciplined penalties which gives the Soviets 9 minutes of power play time. If they had cashed in on those and won the game, his performance in the series would be remembered much differently.

- While much was made of the disparity in penalties between the two teams, you could argue that Canada deserved every penalty they got. But some of those offside calls and non-calls were brutal.

- Tretiak holds Canada scorelesx for the whole game, except for an 83 second stretch where he gives up three goals. He was only 20 years old, and you have to wonder if he may have been overwhelmed with the pressure at times.

- I don't know they gave Kharlamov to kill the pain, but he didn't look slowed down even after the slash. He was still the Soviets best player.

- One of the forgotten controversial moments was Kharlamov's disputed non-goal near the end of the second period. The Soviets reacted as though they had scored, but the goal light never went on, and Kompalla didn't signal that it was a goal. The footage doesn't conclusively show whether the puck was or wasn't in the net, but who knows how the series may have turned out if it had been ruled a goal.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

Ellis rarely gets the credit he deserves for helping shut down Kharlamov after Game 1. That was the key to the series as much as anything, I think.

He does from Sinden, who writes this after the Canadians won game 8, while the team is partying back at the hotel. I had wondered if I imagined this passage, where he attributes The Slash to Pat Stapleton... One thing it shows is how fresh Sinden's writing is, as he writes in 'real time'.... The team is heading to the arena, with their date with Destiny and hockey immortality.

 

[VMBM]

Ellis rarely gets the credit he deserves for helping shut down Kharlamov after Game 1. That was the key to the series as much as anything, I think.

Maybe it's because Kharlamov wasn"t "shut down", despite your constant claims to the contrary. But keep on ignoring e.g. game 3 where Kharlamov was the best player on the ice and played his best game of the series.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

- I don't know they gave Kharlamov to kill the pain, but he didn't look slowed down even after the slash. He was still the Soviets best player.

I quite agree that he looked pretty much the same.

As for why, it may have something to do with what I went through during one beer league season. It was late in our opening game, and I went down to block a shot early in my shift. The puck hit the index finger on my right hand, which was how I learned what poor protection the foam rubber on my glove's finger actually offer, I knew it was serious at impact, but not enough to stop me from playing. I skated around for another minute or so, quite normally. I would have continued, sore, had there been more time. But the game ended soon afterwards.

And then.... when I went to the locker and took the glove off !!! That's when I felt it. My finger was broken. I can remember the oohs and aahs of my teammates. Shock at how flat my index finger looked ! There was no way I could have played AFTER I took the glove off. My season was basically ended and I knew it as soon as the glove was off (although I did manage to get in the last couple of games).

Maybe Kharlamov went through a similar thing.

 

[VMBM]

Random observations:

- As far as I'm concerned, the Canadians often behaved like asses in this game, Phil Esposito being the head honcho at that, and at least partly can blame themselves for their problems with the refs. It seems like they had made a conscious decision after game 5 to turn this series into a - for want of a better term - street fight in which intimidation would play a big part. And I can't know whether Ferguson or whoever gave a direct 'order' to injure Kharlamov or not, but it's obvious that he was the main target of their bullying; for example, here, just moments before the slash, Gary Bergman roughens him up near the boards, partly off-camera. This treatment continues even after the slash; here Pat Stapleton gives Kharlamov a "rough ride along the boards" in the words of Brian Conacher, who also notes the "attention" that the Canadians were giving him in the game. This may sound a bit too dramatic, but I just get the feeling watching the game that Kharlamov was not going to get through this match unharmed.

- Right, the goal (?) Kharlamov scored that went unrecognized. It's impossible to say anything definitive from the official footage, but at least Foster Hewitt's claim that the puck hit the side of the net has to be nonsense, since how could it bounce back into Ken Dryden's glove from there? A nice pattern/passing play between Lutchenko, Lyapkin, Petrov and Kharlamov nevertheless... and after the play, another case of unnecessary bullying/cross-checking on Kharlamov by Bergman. However, the Soviets could also be blamed for being a bit ineffective, since they did get to play 5-on-3 quite a while in the 2nd period.

- the narrative nearly always seems to be about Team Canada and their problems and their bad (coaching) decisions, but you have to wonder about the Soviets' tactical choices in this game. For example, Mikhailov and Petrov, of which especially the former had been among the best and most consistent performers in Canada, did not play at all in the 1st period, played only on special teams (PK, PP) in the 2nd, and then were put together with Alexander Volchkov in the 3rd, although they had not played with him in the series before (and probably not much anywhere else either, despite being team mates in CSKA Moscow). This reminds me of game 2, where Petrov and Mikhailov played with Yevgeni Mishakov, and it didn't work very well either, even with Mikhailov being one the few Soviet highlights in that game; I always thought that they played best with their regulalar linemate (well, in this series anyway) Yuri Blinov but maybe Blinov had some health issues, I don't know. In any case, they were reunited with Blinov for the remaining two games at least.

- The Yakushev-Shadrin(-Anisin)-Lyapkin-Lutchenko unit continued their very strong performance, and were responsible for both Soviet goals (at least the official ones). They just seemed to get better and better and IMO were clearly the strongest unit/line in Moscow, both teams included. It was not just Yakushev, although he was arguably the best of them.

I'd say that Clarke is at worst the third best Canadian forward in the series, and honestly I'd put him at 2 behind Esposito. His play is overshadowed by the slash but he was great defensively in several games and played a huge role in Henderson's scoring.

I don't disagree otherwise, but then again, Clarke did not have a direct influence (as a playmaker) on any of the 3 GWGs that Henderson scored in games 6, 7 and 8.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

Random observations:

- As far as I'm concerned, the Canadians often behaved like asses in this game, Phil Esposito being the head honcho at that, and at least partly can blame themselves for their problems with the refs. It seems like they had made a conscious decision after game 5 to turn this series into a - for want of a better term - street fight in which intimidation would play a big part. And I can't know whether Ferguson or whoever gave a direct 'order' to injure Kharlamov or not, but it's obvious that he was the main target of their bullying;

This was posted earlier, Sinden's reasons for the over reaction... FYI, if you didn't see it, the Montreal Gazette newspaper seems to provide direct confirmation, from Ferguson, that Ferguson did say this.[ Edit - However, in a Sep 3 2022 article, Bobby Clarke reportedly told the Toronto Star that Ferguson had lied about the instruction, in order to protect Clarke !

As for the temper tantrums...

This is another thing, I don't ever remember NHL teams being this pissed off at referees during this era. It recalls the same in Sweden two weeks earlier. Maybe others here will know better, but it really does seem like the NHL players were acting out of character.

Sinden goes on about the reffing after Game Six...

He comments this way, during G6's post game scrum

Then, after practise on the day after Game Six.

Maybe it's due to the fact I'm a North American node on the Internet, but over the years I have read much candid chat about the Canadian-North American style of rough play, and sometimes excessive roughness, through discussions that commonly involve Canadians.

Can anyone point me to similar discussions where Europeans talk about the things that Sinden is say here? I would like to see evidence that Europeans of this era either acknowledge that this sort of 'underhanded' play was indeed a 'thing' in circa 72, or that it really was not (in which case Sinden must be making the whole thing up).

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

VMPM wrote:

to...

Ellis rarely gets the credit he deserves for helping shut down Kharlamov after Game 1. That was the key to the series as much as anything, I think.

Maybe it's because Kharlamov wasn"t "shut down", despite your constant claims to the contrary. But keep on ignoring e.g. game 3 where Kharlamov was the best player on the ice and played his best game of the series.

VK was a truly world-class player who arrived in Canada as the poster boy of Soviet hockey. He was the one player that some Canadians knew something about, on a roster comprised of total enigmas. His success in Game One seems to have permanently secured his legend in the eyes of the Canadian media, and after his two goals in the second period he could do no wrong. That was my perception. And I just didn't see him stand out after the first game. That tells me he was basically contained until Clarke's slash, then that discussion becomes irrelevant.

The Soviet skaters that I remember standing out consistently were Mikhailov and Yakushev. BM for being involved a lot. I liked the way he got himself in the centre of things, and quite admired his irreverence to the Canadians. Yakushev for being consistently effective, especially in Moscow. (Given his style of play around the net, I might have thought that Alexander Yakushev meant "Phil Esposito" in English.)

While I wouldn't necessarily agree that Yak was the best forward in the Summit Series, which he was recognized as, I would certainly say that he belongs in that conversation along with very few others. Had VK played all eight games healthy, as he did AFTER game one, I would not include him in that debate, personally.

 

[VMBM]

VMPM wrote:

to...

Maybe it's because Kharlamov wasn"t "shut down", despite your constant claims to the contrary. But keep on ignoring e.g. game 3 where Kharlamov was the best player on the ice and played his best game of the series.

VK was a truly world-class player who arrived in Canada as the poster boy of Soviet hockey. He was the one player that some Canadians knew something about, on a roster comprised of total enigmas. His success in Game One seems to have permanently secured his legend in the eyes of the Canadian media, and after his two goals in the second period he could do no wrong. That was my perception. And I just didn't see him stand out after the first game. That tells me he was basically contained until Clarke's slash, then that discussion becomes irrelevant.

"That tells me..." Why should I care what you think? Geez.

I guess the thing is that I believe my own eyes, rather than your, or Big Phil's, or Sinden's blabber about Kharlamov being contained or shut down after game 1. But whatever gets you through the night.

 

[Theokritos]

VK was a truly world-class player who arrived in Canada as the poster boy of Soviet hockey. He was the one player that some Canadians knew something about, on a roster comprised of total enigmas.

Can't really speak for the Canadian perception prior to the series, but at that time Kharlamov and Maltsev were the two big stars of Soviet hockey, followed by Vikulov.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

Can't really speak for the Canadian perception prior to the series, but at that time Kharlamov and Maltsev were the two big stars of Soviet hockey, followed by Vikulov.

Maltsev... there's another name I should have mentioned among the Soviets' most prominent seeming players in 72. (I tend to confuse him with Sergei Makarov, my favourite Russian until Pavel Datsyuk came along.)

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

Speaking of writing or thinking in 'real time', we have this on the referee Josef Kompalla, speaking between games 7 and 8. By this time he would have reffed TC72 on multiple occasions since Sweden :

Dan Proudfoot of the Globe and Mail wrote about Kompalla the day before the final match;

Josef Kompalla doesn't think much of Team Canada, either. He dislikes our players' manners. "They make a lot of noise about one faceoff, whether it should be a few feet away. They're very childish. They come and swear at us and call us blinkety-blank German referees who don't know anything. They're all bad. Ratelle is a very good and disciplined player, and the blonde defenceman No. 3 (Stapleton) also is very good."
Kompalla believes that Canada would be better represented by New York Rangers or Boston Bruins. "The Canadian team is no team at all. They've spent four weeks together. The Russians have been getting together for four years. The Canadian players are hot shots, but Phil Esposito cannot play 60 minutes. The Canadians need 10 or 15 games to be in top condition. I do think they could win if they were in top condition."
Kompalla referees about 75 games a year, "But do you know how much I get at home in Germany for a First Division game? Fifteen dollars. Imagine how much the NHL referees make. For me, this refereeing is just a hobby. My job is as a manager of a discotheque. We're open from 5p.m. to 3a.m. I show people to their tables, you know."
He professed to not worry about Team Canada criticism. "I let it go in one ear, and out the other."

The man most disappointed with Kompalla's preformance is Scotty Morrison, NHL referee-in-chief. Morrison had all the referees of the series visit Toronto during the Team Canada training camp, so that he could conduct officiating seminars. "I was especially disappointed with Kompalla because he impressed me," said Morriso [who must also be commenting in 'real time.] "I didn't expect much from Baader, but I liked Kompalla. "But it looks now like the entire clinic was a waste of time."

Josef Kompalla was inducted into the IIHF's Hall of Fame in 2003

 

[JackSlater]

Speaking of writing or thinking in 'real time', we have this on the referee Josef Kompalla, speaking between games 7 and 8. By this time he would have reffed TC72 on multiple occasions since Sweden :

Dan Proudfoot of the Globe and Mail wrote about Kompalla the day before the final match;

Josef Kompalla doesn't think much of Team Canada, either. He dislikes our players' manners. "They make a lot of noise about one faceoff, whether it should be a few feet away. They're very childish. They come and swear at us and call us blinkety-blank German referees who don't know anything. They're all bad. Ratelle is a very good and disciplined player, and the blonde defenceman No. 3 (Stapleton) also is very good."
Kompalla believes that Canada would be better represented by New York Rangers or Boston Bruins. "The Canadian team is no team at all. They've spent four weeks together. The Russians have been getting together for four years. The Canadian players are hot shots, but Phil Esposito cannot play 60 minutes. The Canadians need 10 or 15 games to be in top condition. I do think they could win if they were in top condition."
Kompalla referees about 75 games a year, "But do you know how much I get at home in Germany for a First Division game? Fifteen dollars. Imagine how much the NHL referees make. For me, this refereeing is just a hobby. My job is as a manager of a discotheque. We're open from 5p.m. to 3a.m. I show people to their tables, you know."
He professed to not worry about Team Canada criticism. "I let it go in one ear, and out the other."

The man most disappointed with Kompalla's preformance is Scotty Morrison, NHL referee-in-chief. Morrison had all the referees of the series visit Toronto during the Team Canada training camp, so that he could conduct officiating seminars. "I was especially disappointed with Kompalla because he impressed me," said Morriso [who must also be commenting in 'real time.] "I didn't expect much from Baader, but I liked Kompalla. "But it looks now like the entire clinic was a waste of time."

Josef Kompalla was inducted into the IIHF's Hall of Fame in 2003

That's interesting, particularly the clinic part. Never read that before.

Regarding Yakushev, I'd have him right up with Esposito as the best forward and player in the series.

 

[Big Phil]

Maybe it's because Kharlamov wasn"t "shut down", despite your constant claims to the contrary. But keep on ignoring e.g. game 3 where Kharlamov was the best player on the ice and played his best game of the series.

Called it "contained" then. Slowed down. Shadowed. Whatever the case, he had two goals in Game 1 and then one the rest of the tournament. He was keyed on afterwards, that helped. He was too good of a player to shut down completely, you can never shut down these types of guys where they get no production. But I think he was slowed down even before Game 6. There you go. Sue me.

 

[VMBM]

There you go. Sue me.

Maybe I should. The indictment being "talking nonsense"? And should I adress you as the "President of Team Canada apologists"? Because quite frankly, much of this is about discounting any suggestion that Team Canada's win was anything else but a Herculean (Heraklean?) effort against basically the rest of the World, including West German and Swedish referees.
Of course injuring the opposition's best player had no effect at all, since he was contained/shut down/stopped cold anyway, which of course makes Clarke's actions ever so logical.

PS. I think Wayne Gretzky scored, what, one goal in the 3 games of the '87 Canada Cup final; he must have been totally shut down in the series!

 

[Big Phil]

Maybe I should. The indictment being "talking nonsense"? And should I adress you as the "President of Team Canada apologists"? Because quite frankly, much of this is about discounting any suggestion that Team Canada's win was anything else but a Herculean (Heraklean?) effort against basically the rest of the World, including West German and Swedish referees.
Of course injuring the opposition's best player had no effect at all, since he was contained/shut down/stopped cold anyway, which of course makes Clarke's actions ever so logical.

PS. I think Wayne Gretzky scored, what, one goal in the 3 games of the '87 Canada Cup final; he must have been totally shut down in the series!

I think you are overreacting.

Canada had a 31-4 disadvantage in penalty minutes in Game 6. Yet won the game 3-2. Somewhere along the line you have to look at that and find it impressive. I think Clarke has owned that slash over the years. Lots of players have talked about the subtle stickwork the Soviets did as well. If we can own the slash on Kharlamov, can we admit that Kompalla was a horrid choice as a ref? Or that they went out of their way to have him in Game 8 again (they told the more reliable Dahlberg to sit in his hotel room prior to the game)? Or that the Canadian team had their food and beer stolen. Calls to their hotel rooms in the middle of the night, etc. Mikhailov's kick on Bergman.

Why can't we just say it was a crazy series, the likes we'll never see again and just say the better team dug down and won? Three games in Moscow won under very obscure conditions. It is like 1987. Canada comes back in the Canada Cup final in two different games after being down three goals. I mean, if my team does that, and if they blow a lead in Game 8 at home while up 5-3 in the third period, I'm going to be awfully ticked off at their performance. Tables are overturned in my locker room if I am the coach.