Crosby2010
Registered User
- Mar 4, 2023
- 1,726
- 1,719
How did it take me so long to finally watch this? Either way, I am glad I did. We are used to hearing this from an American standpoint and hearing Al Michaels' voice saying "Do you believe in miracles? Yes!" But I liked hearing it from Fetisov's standpoint. And then Makarov was in there, Tretiak, Myshkin, Kasatonov, etc. Definitely a more somber perspective. Just some take aways from this and other aspects of the Miracle on Ice.
Even the Soviet announcers that we hear commentating on the game cannot understand why Tikhonov doesn't pull the goalie with a minute or so left. I know the Soviets were always ahead and probably never practiced this sort of thing and it also was the mindset of not allowing an easy empty net goal, but they were blitzing against the Americans at this point and in reality almost tied it. Petrov has that backhander with under a minute left point blank and shoots it wide. Jim Craig had the game of his life. This was simply put a choke job by the Soviets. The Americans were young, fast and in shape and it probably took the Soviets back a bit.
One thing I never have thought was a big deal was Tretiak getting pulled. I wouldn't have done it personally, because without that last second Johnson goal to make it 2-2 the Soviets are up 2-1 in the 1st intermission and feeling better about themselves. Tikhonov pulled Tretiak, and Tretiak said that when he was told he didn't like it but he didn't say a word. But people act like Myshkin was chopped liver. He wasn't. He shut the NHL All-Stars out in the final 6-0 game in the 1979 Challenge Cup a year earlier and he was very good in the 1984 Canada Cup as well. He'd have been an NHL goalie too I think. So I never have thought this was an issue. Besides, the Soviets made it 3-2 after two periods and while a slight lead they still had a lead going into the third. Plus both goals in the 3rd on Myshkin weren't horrible either. The tying goal wasn't his fault. I'd say Eruzione's goal is definitely screened. He has the same stunned reaction after both goals. But I wouldn't call it Myshkin's fault and I wouldn't say Tretiak being pulled was the reason for the loss either. Both of Tretiak's goals were weaker.
As mentioned Petrov almost ties the game. If he does this, the game would likely be a tie and the Soviets win the next game and win the gold. The tie that they sweat out against the Americans would have been more or less a footnote and a bullet dodged.
I find the theme of this movie was that the Soviets loved Anatoli Tarasov's teachings but didn't approve of the more militant Tikhonov. I've bounced back over the years in thinking Tikhonov was a good coach. I'm not sure he was. He made some huge mistakes, had some stubborn ways of doing things and I think he just had the control over the players. I'll give him credit with turning a team into a well oiled machine. That is arguably the best team there ever was, and they played like it. No individuals, just a team coming at you. But as I mentioned he didn't know how to pull the goalie, he was never good at in-game changes (eg. in the 1987 Canada Cup when Mike Keenan shuffled his lines Tikhonov didn't know what to do).
When this documentary was made in 2015 you could see it still hurt the Soviets. That loss has always stung. We look at it as a Miracle on Ice, to them it was a nightmare and on that Eruzione goal there is a Soviet defenseman - I am not sure who - that slaps the puck away in frustration after the puck goes in. That was a rare show of emotion from the Soviets, like, ever. This was a snowball rolling down the hill to them. And to be honest they had peeled their way through the 1980 Olympics by this point. All that had happened was expected up until the USA game. The Soviets had a 51-11 goal differential in the round robin. And even after the U.S. loss they thrashed Sweden 9-2. So without the US win vs. Finland the Soviets win gold.
But you can see their reactions and their memories from watching the Americans get their gold medals. They truly felt that should have been theirs. And why not, they won it all of the time. It is always nice to see stuff from the other perspective and while nothing shocked me, it still was a nice vantage point to watch.
Even the Soviet announcers that we hear commentating on the game cannot understand why Tikhonov doesn't pull the goalie with a minute or so left. I know the Soviets were always ahead and probably never practiced this sort of thing and it also was the mindset of not allowing an easy empty net goal, but they were blitzing against the Americans at this point and in reality almost tied it. Petrov has that backhander with under a minute left point blank and shoots it wide. Jim Craig had the game of his life. This was simply put a choke job by the Soviets. The Americans were young, fast and in shape and it probably took the Soviets back a bit.
One thing I never have thought was a big deal was Tretiak getting pulled. I wouldn't have done it personally, because without that last second Johnson goal to make it 2-2 the Soviets are up 2-1 in the 1st intermission and feeling better about themselves. Tikhonov pulled Tretiak, and Tretiak said that when he was told he didn't like it but he didn't say a word. But people act like Myshkin was chopped liver. He wasn't. He shut the NHL All-Stars out in the final 6-0 game in the 1979 Challenge Cup a year earlier and he was very good in the 1984 Canada Cup as well. He'd have been an NHL goalie too I think. So I never have thought this was an issue. Besides, the Soviets made it 3-2 after two periods and while a slight lead they still had a lead going into the third. Plus both goals in the 3rd on Myshkin weren't horrible either. The tying goal wasn't his fault. I'd say Eruzione's goal is definitely screened. He has the same stunned reaction after both goals. But I wouldn't call it Myshkin's fault and I wouldn't say Tretiak being pulled was the reason for the loss either. Both of Tretiak's goals were weaker.
As mentioned Petrov almost ties the game. If he does this, the game would likely be a tie and the Soviets win the next game and win the gold. The tie that they sweat out against the Americans would have been more or less a footnote and a bullet dodged.
I find the theme of this movie was that the Soviets loved Anatoli Tarasov's teachings but didn't approve of the more militant Tikhonov. I've bounced back over the years in thinking Tikhonov was a good coach. I'm not sure he was. He made some huge mistakes, had some stubborn ways of doing things and I think he just had the control over the players. I'll give him credit with turning a team into a well oiled machine. That is arguably the best team there ever was, and they played like it. No individuals, just a team coming at you. But as I mentioned he didn't know how to pull the goalie, he was never good at in-game changes (eg. in the 1987 Canada Cup when Mike Keenan shuffled his lines Tikhonov didn't know what to do).
When this documentary was made in 2015 you could see it still hurt the Soviets. That loss has always stung. We look at it as a Miracle on Ice, to them it was a nightmare and on that Eruzione goal there is a Soviet defenseman - I am not sure who - that slaps the puck away in frustration after the puck goes in. That was a rare show of emotion from the Soviets, like, ever. This was a snowball rolling down the hill to them. And to be honest they had peeled their way through the 1980 Olympics by this point. All that had happened was expected up until the USA game. The Soviets had a 51-11 goal differential in the round robin. And even after the U.S. loss they thrashed Sweden 9-2. So without the US win vs. Finland the Soviets win gold.
But you can see their reactions and their memories from watching the Americans get their gold medals. They truly felt that should have been theirs. And why not, they won it all of the time. It is always nice to see stuff from the other perspective and while nothing shocked me, it still was a nice vantage point to watch.