SIHR Blog Lloyd Percival and Soviet Hockey (Part 2)

Theokritos

Global Moderator
Apr 6, 2010
12,648
5,047
In March 1953, Stan Obodiac handed Anatoli Tarasov a book by Lloyd Percival. It's not clear whether the book was How to Play Better Hockey or The Hockey Handbook and how much of it Tarasov was able to translate. What we do know is that six months later, Tarasov implemented a new training routine with the Soviet national team:

Tarasov, for the first time in the history of Soviet hockey, put the team under a regime of training twice a day (…) Actually, the head coach didn't just introduce two workouts, but almost three workouts. The morning began with ice skating drills which lasted 40-50 minutes. Then the main training took place from 12 to 14 o'clock. And one more full-fledged training session was held from 19 to 21 o'clock. [1]​

It's tempting to suspect Tarasov might have been inspired by Percival's book, even if the rigour of the workouts was undoubtedly his own doing. The players didn't react well to the unfamiliar strain, but Tarasov kept pushing them – in spite of warnings by assistant coach Vladimir Yegorov. By November 1953, the team was so exhausted and demoralized that the Soviet hockey federation decided to relieve the head coach of his duties. Tarasov was replaced by Arkadi Chernyshov, who – together with Vladimir Yegorov – proceeded to guide the team to victory at the 1954 World Championship. Tarasov, on his part, remained head coach of the Army club and waited for another chance with the national team.

In 1955, two years after Tarasov had been handed the book, Lloyd Percival received a letter from Nikolai Ozolin, director of the State Central Institute of Physical Culture in Moscow:

The letter says the institute had been made aware of Percival's research into physical conditioning and says, in part: „We would be glad to establish contact and scientific interchange with you.“ [2]​

Percival was happy to comply. In the same year, 500 copies of his Hockey Handbook were shipped from New York to Moscow [3]. In Russia, the leading sports publisher Fizkultura i sport commissioned a translation. Five of the original eight chapters were included: „Scoring Goals“, „Carrying the Puck“, „Offensive Strategy and Tactics“, „Defensive Strategy and Tactics“ and „Goalkeeping“. Three chapters were left out: „Skating“, „Practice Organization and Coaching Technique“ and „Training“. A lengthy foreword by Anatoli Tarasov was added. The title of the shortened Russian edition was Khokkey („Hockey“). In November 1956, the manuscript was handed in for typesetting. Printing started in February 1957.

image-1-jpg.409793

Khokkey, the abbreviated Russian edition of The Hockey Handbook.​

Tarasov's preface introduces Percival as a „well-known expert within the hockey circles“ of North America and notes that he was once a consultant to an NHL club, Detroit Red Wings. Tarasov says that the book contains „all the latest and the best“ that the Canadian school of hockey has assembled and he highlights the opportunity for Soviet players and coaches to get acquainted with the Canadian way of playing. Throughout the preface, he keeps acknowledging the mastery of the Canadians. Chapter 1: „Canadian players have reached high mastery when it comes to making shots on goal.“ Chapter 2: „We know Canadian players as skillful masters of stickhandling.“ Chapter 3: „In Canada, a hockey player is subject to very high and versatile requirements.“ Chapter 4: „There is a lot of originality in the defensive tactics of the Canadians.“ Chapter 5: „The art of hockey goalkeeping has been mastered brilliantly by many athletes in Canada.“ Thirteen years after handing in this preface, Tarasov would send the following message to Lloyd Percival: „Your wonderful book which introduced us to the mysteries of Canadian hockey I have read like a schoolboy. Thank you for a hockey science which is significant to world hockey.“ [4]

Motivated by an „ardent desire to contribute something to world hockey“ himself, Tarasov delivers critical remarks on Percival's teachings – remarks he hopes will be interesting not only for his Soviet audience, but also for foreign readers.

The longest part of Tarasov's preface is dedicated to Percival's chapter „Scoring Goals“. Percival is recognized as having described the various scoring options with „great expertise“ and a „creative understanding of the essence“ of hockey. In particular, Tarasov recommends the sections „Screen shots“, „Follow your shot“ and „Scrambles“. However, numerous other sections are subject to criticism. Among other things, Tarasov rejects the emphasis on shooting from optimal range and urges players to shoot unexpectedly from a variety of positions. Players should be encouraged to be daring and try out new things during the game instead of following a formula. Tarasov also objects to Percival's preference for the long „sweep shot“ and recommends the slap shot and the snap shot. He outlines differences between Russian teachings and Percival's descriptions of the technique for various shots.

His remarks on the chapter „Carrying the puck“ are much shorter. He says that the Soviets have „a lot to learn from the Canadians when it comes to stickhandling techniques“ and commends Percival for demonstrating the role of stickhandling and for putting „a lot of fantasy“ in the drills, some of which he singles out as „difficult and at the same time very useful and new for us“. He calls for Soviet coaches to pay more attention to stickhandling and urges the players to „learn to use these techniques at the level of our best stickhandling masters“. One of the few criticisms towards Percival: Tarasov would rather discuss „timely passes“ than „fast passes“. The latter are not always useful, he says: sometimes the situation on the ice calls for a delay.

image-2-jpg.409794

Percival's obstacle course in Russian.​

The notes on the chapter „Offensive tactics“ are more extensive again and provide some fundamental insights into Tarasov's philosophy. First off, Percival is afforded praise for his „creativity“, his „great knowledge“ and his „good psychological analysis“. In line with Tarasov's appreciation of the section „Follow your shot“ in the first chapter, he now recommends the section „Following the puck in“ and urges Soviet players to develop the habit of moving in on the net once a shot on goal was made. His following critique of Percival addresses some key questions. Tarasov stresses that it isn't the puck-carrier who is the „conductor of the attack“ – instead, the four other players are responsible for creating passing options for him and make him succeed. Tarasov also speaks out against what he calls universalism in hockey. Examples are the very active role of the Canadian defenders in the attack and Percival's suggestion to use forwards on the point during the man advantage. For Tarasov, the Soviet game was based on specialization, not universalization. However, tthe topic kept being discussed controversely in Soviet hockey circles and over the following decade, Tarasov's own view on using forwards as point players wouldn't remain unchanged.

Concerning the chapter „Defensive tactics“, Tarasov notes that the Canadian school uses two main weapons: physical play and individual coverage. He concedes that the Canadians are hard to score on and that the Soviets „need more physical play as one mean of winning the puck“. At the same time, he warns Soviet coaches „against copying everything“ in the book. He says the Soviet defense combines „individual coverage with zonal play“ in order to faciliate counterattacks and he warns against excessive physical play.

Tarasov's remarks on the chapter „Goalkeeping“ contain more approval of drills proposed by Percival and criticism of specific recommendations, for example on the basic stance of the goaltender. Tarasov also dismisses the idea that the goaltender should try to remember the habits of all dangerous scoring players as unrealistic and unneccessary, arguing that one and the same attacker often shoots unexpectedly and from varying positions.

The chapters „Skating“, „Practice Organization and Coaching Technique“ and „Training“ weren't included in the publication, but that doesn't necessarily mean they didn't have an impact. While Tarasov's own book from 1950, Khokkey s shayboy, already contained a year-round training program with extensive dry-land exercises, it did not cover nutrition – one of Percival's favourite topics and one the Soviets would later pay great attention to. Skating drills weren't included either: in 1950, Tarasov merely described basic requirements for skating in hockey. By autumn 1953, however, he made the Soviet national team go through extensive skating drills.

image-3-jpg.409795

Illustrations of the portable insert goal. Left: from the Russian edition of the Hockey Handbook. Right: from Sportivnye igry.​

The impact of the Hockey Handbook in Russia wasn't restricted to Anatoli Tarasov, but specific traces of influence are hard to uncover. One of the few examples of Lloyd Percival being cited by name in the Soviet Union is an unsigned article from the January 1959 edition of Sportivne igry [5], perhaps authored by Sergei Savin, the former president of the Soviet hockey federation who was a member of the magazine's editorial board. The article advertised the portable insert goal from the Hockey Handbook for shooting practice, explained how the Canadians used it and – erroneously – called Percival „one of the leading coaches of the Canadian-American professional hockey league“.

Acknowledgment: Thanks to Stephen Smith, Donald C. Murray, Jim Genac and Jonathon Jackson for their help.

[1] Anatoli Salutsky, Vsevolod Bobrov (1987), 133
[2] Ottawa Journal, December 10, 1968, 23
[3] Gary Mossman, Lloyd Percival: Coach and Visionary (2013), 71
[4] Dated December 27, 1969. From The Globe and Mail, September 16, 1972, 39
[5] Sportivnye igry, January 1959, 25

Posted on Behind the Boards (SIHR Blog)
 
Last edited:

sr edler

gold is not reality
Mar 20, 2010
12,125
6,594
Nice review, Theo.

This Percival guy seems like a bit of an under the radar guy. I didn't find much on him on the Google, outside of an entry on the Canadian Encyclopedia (Lloyd Percival | The Canadian Encyclopedia) where the author says he was "a controversial and versatile entrepreneur". If that's true, in what way was he controversial? Ruffled some feathers? Or just a guy with his own opinions on things?

I also wonder what he meant by the long "sweep shot". I always thought Mario Lemieux had such a shot in his shot arsenal, where he kinda swept the puck, but perhaps Percival is onto another type of shot? Also, what Lemieux did with the puck wasn't exactly a thing easily adapted by everyday players.
 

Theokritos

Global Moderator
Apr 6, 2010
12,648
5,047
This Percival guy seems like a bit of an under the radar guy. I didn't find much on him on the Google, outside of an entry on the Canadian Encyclopedia (Lloyd Percival | The Canadian Encyclopedia) where the author says he was "a controversial and versatile entrepreneur". If that's true, in what way was he controversial? Ruffled some feathers? Or just a guy with his own opinions on things?

He definitely had his own opinions and wasn't afraid to let the world know he was right and everyone else was wrong. In some cases it was actually true. Percival was definitely ahead of his time in quite a few eras, e.g. conditioning, nutrition, his systematic approach in general, his attempt to measure everything and take scientific data into consideration. When Detroit Red Wings employed him as an advisor in 1950-1951, he examined the players and produced a report on his findings that had 100 (!) pages. Some of his numerous suggestions were adopted, but – needless to say – not all of them. Now, as long as things went well for the club and the players that Percival had suggested particularly drastic changes for (e.g. he made Terry Sawchuk and Eric Nesterenko lose a lot of weight) everyone was happy, but when players went through a slump, fingers were quickly pointed at Percival's unorthodox ideas.

I also wonder what he meant by the long "sweep shot". I always thought Mario Lemieux had such a shot in his shot arsenal, where he kinda swept the puck, but perhaps Percival is onto another type of shot?

The sweep shot is basically a wrist-shot. The latter term was either not around yet or not yet common. Perhaps the release was a bit slower than today.
 

Staniowski

Registered User
Jan 13, 2018
3,831
3,440
The Maritimes
Nice review, Theo.

This Percival guy seems like a bit of an under the radar guy. I didn't find much on him on the Google, outside of an entry on the Canadian Encyclopedia (Lloyd Percival | The Canadian Encyclopedia) where the author says he was "a controversial and versatile entrepreneur". If that's true, in what way was he controversial? Ruffled some feathers? Or just a guy with his own opinions on things?

I also wonder what he meant by the long "sweep shot". I always thought Mario Lemieux had such a shot in his shot arsenal, where he kinda swept the puck, but perhaps Percival is onto another type of shot? Also, what Lemieux did with the puck wasn't exactly a thing easily adapted by everyday players.
I bought The Hockey Handbook when I was a kid....somebody had told me that it was the bible of hockey, so I bought it.

I didn't read the whole book, and I don't know whether or not I still have it.
 

57special

Posting the right way since 2012.
Sep 5, 2012
49,718
21,578
MN
I am pretty old. We were taught the snap shot, wrist shot, the drag shot and the sweep shot, with the snap shot being the quickest to release and the sweep the longest. The sweep shot is essentially a slap shot where the stick doesn't leave the ice in the backswing.
 

Theokritos

Global Moderator
Apr 6, 2010
12,648
5,047
The later editions of the Hockey Handbook (I have the one from 1992/1993) group the sweep shot together with the wrist shot by using the subheader "sweep/wrist shot". I'm trying to find out what the original edition from 1951 has to say about the sweep shot. If I can't figure that out, I will translate the relevant part of the 1957 Russian edition back to English. But I'd prefer to have Percival's authentic description.
 
Last edited:

Theokritos

Global Moderator
Apr 6, 2010
12,648
5,047
what the original edition from 1951 has to say about the sweep shot

Here it is:

"This is the name given to the most common type of shot, the ordinary everyday shot. It is so named because it is performed with a smooth, sweeping action of the stick, from either the forehand or backhand side.

Bring the puck well back behind you. Then, with a forward sweeping motion of the stick, bring it quickly forward. At the same time keep your weight on the stick by leaning your upper body over the puck, and by keeping your head low. At the start of the sweep, keep your wrists cocked back. Then, just as the puck begins to go out in front of you, snap the wrists viciously, putting every ounce of forearm and wrist strength you have into it. Whip that puck forward as if you were angry at it. As you snap the puck forward, make very sure you do not pull away from the shot by letting your head and shoulders come up and away. Instead, keep over the puck until it has gone well on its way. The same principle is involved here as in hitting a golf ball, a baseball, or a tennis ball. Do not pull away as the action is made.

When the sweeping action starts the weight is on the rear leg (left if a left-handed shot) and then is placed on to the forward leg as the puck is snapped forward with that all-important explosive effort. After the puck has gone, make sure you allow your stick to follow through smoothly. Do not stop it with a jerk. Let the blade of the stick follow through until it is pointing at the target you aimed for. The puck should be about halfway between the heel and the end of the blade. The hands should be as close together on the shaft of the stick as possible, because the closer they are, the more whip you can get. (...)

To cock the wrists at the start of the shot, move the hands back from the wrist. To get the wrist snap when you shoot, whip them forward again."

Later editions of The Hockey Handbook (I have the one from 1992/1993) have the same content under the header "sweep/wrist shot".
 

Theokritos

Global Moderator
Apr 6, 2010
12,648
5,047
A little more on the following question:

Tarasov also speaks out against what he calls universalism in hockey. Examples are the very active role of the Canadian defenders in the attack and Percival's suggestion to use forwards on the point during the man advantage. For Tarasov, the Soviet game was based on specialization, not universalization. However, tthe topic kept being discussed controversely in Soviet hockey circles and over the following decade, Tarasov's own view on using forwards as point players wouldn't remain unchanged.

Here's a preview on the translation of Tarasov's preface:

Talking about «point players» [1], the author does not only mean defencemen, but also forwards who can be trusted with such a role. A clear direction towards the universalization of hockey is taken here. This is confirmed by further reasoning about the active play of the defencemen (page 156), and, in fact, corresponds with the play of the Canadian teams in world competitions.
Universal tactics are presented, for example, when describing the game with the man advantage. In this case, the author recommends lining up five forwards. This means that the forwards who act in the role the defencemen must know how to play the position at the blue line with a good sense for mutual insurance, have the ability to shoot from far-range and – also very important – fulfill all duties of a defenceman if their team is forced to defend.
We don't share the author's opinion on the tactics of universalism in hockey. While establishing and developing the tactics, the coach must take into account the abilities of each player and the inclination of his character. Which activities suit him more: defensive or offensive ones? Depending on his, he has a specific position in the team, in which he constantly perfects his primary role. Playing in one and the same setup cannot be dismissed. It gives the line and the team chemistry. The issue of universalism in hockey has been widely covered by our press more than once.
Our coaches rightly consider specialization as the foundation of tactics. As the players master their primary role and improve their skills, their responsibilities grow, both due to the expanding field of activity and due to the great interaction with their partners. But their primary role remains set in stone.​

[1] Tarasov means the ones playing „the point“ inside the blue line in the offensive zone, in particular during the power play.

One year after this was published, leading defenceman Nikolai Sologubov wrote an article that closed with the following words:

During our stay in Canada we got acquainted with the game of the best teams of the homeland of hockey and gained valuable experience. And, most importantly, we came to the conviction that a modern hockey player of high international class has to be a universal player. The sooner we solve the problem of preparing universal players who can equally attack and defend, the higher the class of our hockey will be and the more we will achieve in international meetings with the strongest teams of the world.​

The difference between Sologubov and Tarasov is obvious. Another opposing voice made itself heard in 1965, as Tarasov reports in a later book:

It would seem that the success of Soviet hockey in recent years should have made everybody accept allegiance to the path we have chosen. But in 1965 one of our most respected coaches and experts speaks out in a magazine and encourages our players to universalize, explaining this proposal with the fact that the elite players among the Canadian professional masters are all universalists.​

Note that both Sologubov and the 1965 author point to the Canadians as a model of "universalism". Tarasov agreed that this was the way the Canadians played, but he didn't agree it should be a model for the Soviets.

Tarasov doesn't mention the "respected coach and expert" by name, but I think he was talking about Nikolai Epstein, coach of Khimik Voskresensk, who was known to favour "universal players". In the same book, Tarasov shuns the Khimik school and its best product, Valeri Nikitin (defenceman and right wing):

My ideal is not an average multi-dimensional player who is equal in all elements of skill, but a multi-dimensional player with some brilliant individual qualities, with peculiarities, even if there are things he doesn't know how to do well. That's why I think it's wrong when some of our coaches focus on players' weaknesses. By working on the weak points, they little by little pay less attention to the bright features of their gifts. (...)
In this regard, I want to dedicate a few lines to Valeri Nikitin, a hockey player of Khimik Voskresensk. It's only recently I got to know him well, when he was called up to the Soviet national team and headed to the 1967 World Championship in Vienna. (...) Valeri is a very modest person, inquisitive, intelligent. He understands hockey well, it's nice to talk to him and I'm glad that I met him.
But unfortunately, Valeri is a universal player. When I thanked him after the World Championship, I frankly told him I regret his unsuccessful hockey destiny. Yes, unsuccessful, I didn't hold back. He got into the national team pretty late and not because he wasn't noticed by the coaches: Nikitin is just not a bright and outstanding player, unfortunately. And it's not even his fault. (...)
The handwriting of his game has no bright distinctive features. His physical data are mediocre, he doesn't have a strong shot. True, he has his dexterity on which his rather high technique is based on. But the technique is not on the level of Alexander Almetov or Boris Mayorov or Vitali Davydov or Anatoli Firsov, it's on a lower level. His skills are less perfect than those of the other national team players. As a defenceman, he is average and, frankly, he scared us. He doesn't really go into clashes because he isn't used to them and wasn't taught how. (...)
Valeri is the best among those who were raised to be universals. But even the best of them is inferior to the rest of the national team. Therefore, the error of the whole line of training of universal players needs to be pointed out. (...) Nikitin has been playing for Khimik for many years. They follow the line for universalization and here you have the result.​

Ironically enough, by the time that Tarasov wrote this complaint about the universalist leaning of the Khimik school, he had already dropped some of the anti-universalist views expressed earlier in his 1957 preface: He wasn't opposed to using fowards as "point players" on the powerplay anymore (at least Anatoli Firsov was used in this manner) and at some point in the 1960s Tarasov had even suggested that the Soviet national team should experiment with five forwards on the powerplay. Nevertheless he remained allergic to the notion of "universal players" and that a player should be able to play as a forward and a defenceman like Nikitin. Yes, defenceman too should join the attack when opportune and forwards should backcheck, but the primary role was the primary role. When Vyacheslav Starshinov, one of the best Soviet two-way centers, was described as a universal player, Tarasov was having none of it:

Some even said Starshinov is a universal player. They said he could be used as a defenceman. No! Vyacheslav is an exemplary center forward with a very accomplished defensive game, that's what he is.​
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DN28

Theokritos

Global Moderator
Apr 6, 2010
12,648
5,047
Tarasov's hope that his remarks would be interesting to foreign coaches and players didn't entirely fulfill, but a report in The Hockey News (THN) on January 17, 1959, shows that at least someone in North America (perhaps Percival himself?) must have taken notice of the preface:

It was Tarasov who wrote the introduction to the translation of a Lloyd Percival textbook on how to play hockey. In this introduction Tarasov took exception to certain Percival statements which he called "stressing the universalization of hockey as in Canada" – whatever that means.​

The same report has some interesting quotes by Tarasov that he made in January 1959, that provide further context and reinforce some of the statements from the 1957 preface:

"The Canadian style is built on putting on extreme pressure. (...) The Canadian attack, with its great skill and daring, employs three players attacking the net. (...) The Soviet style depends upon pressure exterted by the defense, and all the maneuvers are directed torward the situation of of getting numerical superiority for a moment at the proper spot – like you say, putting one man into the open. I envy the Canadian style with its gambling and taking chances. But it is too difficult for us to change our habits. We do not have a long history in hockey and we still do not start our boys at as young an age as in Canada, so we must adhere to our present style."​

THN quotes kindly provided by @seventieslord.
 
Last edited:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad