Most dominant era in international hockey history?

[Mr Kanadensisk]

I think everyone who still says Canada had to cheat to win really needs to get a life.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

The reason Canada has always been so dominant at best on best is because we have always had the best roster of players because we have the most kids playing hockey and thus the biggest pool to draw from. Certainly doesn't mean Canada will win every tournament but it's not really rocket science in figuring out that we will win a lot of them.

 

[canuck2010]

In tournaments that were rigged. They were rigged for a good cause though, so kudos to Alan Eagleson for rigging them.



That certainly would have been the case, had the referees been told that Canada must win, like they were in the Canada Cup tournaments. With neutral referees the Soviets would have been pretty strong in every tournament.[/QUOTE

OMG, Canada was robbed in so many IIHF world championships it wasn't funny. 1964 for instance. Pretty strong would not have been good enough my friend.

 

[Theokritos]

OMG, Canada was robbed in so many IIHF world championships it wasn't funny. 1964 for instance.

They weren't robbed in 1964.

 

[JackSlater]

The reason Canada has always been so dominant at best on best is because we have always had the best roster of players because we have the most kids playing hockey and thus the biggest pool to draw from. Certainly doesn't mean Canada will win every tournament but it's not really rocket science in figuring out that we will win a lot of them.

No way, it can't be that simple. The Canada/World Cups were rigged (Alan Eagleson was the main administrator ewww), the Olympics are rigged (Canadian referees! Backstrom suspended!) otherwise Canada, which has the most talented team by far, would be so unlikely to win.

 

[Lepardi]

No way, it can't be that simple. The Canada/World Cups were rigged (Alan Eagleson was the main administrator ewww), the Olympics are rigged (Canadian referees! Backstrom suspended!) otherwise Canada, which has the most talented team by far, would be so unlikely to win.

If you really can't see the difference between the Canada Cups of the 1980s and modern day Olympic hockey, it might be useful for you to actually watch some of those Canada Cup games from the 1980s, cause you're probably too young to remember them. These are the kind of things that went uncalled. A blatant slash to the head of Khomutov who's celebrating his goal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aadw7wDcnfc#t=31m52s

As someone put it in the comment section, in the modern NHL that's a 20-game suspension, and even back in the day that would have certainly been a 5-minute major, had it been done by a Soviet player. But as it was a Canadian slashing the other guy's head, it was just play on, cause Canada had to win. The Russians, ofcourse, would have cheated at least as much as the Canadians did, had they been lucky enough to get to organize these events and choose the referees. You only have to google "javelin throw in the 1980 olympics", and you can see that they were no amateurs when it came to fixing the results of sporting events.

The teams of Sweden, USA and Russia in the 2010s are nothing compared to the Soviet teams of the 1980s. That's why Canada doesn't need help from the referees or Alan Eagleson anymore to win these best-on-best tournaments. They can dominate those tournaments with neutral refs. And it's a good thing they can, cause the greatness of those Soviet teams was the result of a very sick society, in which players like Makarov, Larionov and Fetisov had to live in a concentration camp away from their families for 11 months every year. This is why Alan Eagleson was certainly fighting for a good cause when he rigged all those tournaments. The west were the good guys in the cold war, and the Canadian society was (and is) vastly superior to the Soviet one, even while the Soviet system's military approach to sports produced a better national team in ice-hockey.

You have to be astoundingly naive and clueless about world history to actually believe that the cold war politics didn't play a part in how these tournaments were organized.

 

[Lepardi]

The reason Canada has always been so dominant at best on best is because we have always had the best roster of players because we have the most kids playing hockey and thus the biggest pool to draw from.

If you think that the level of a national team is determined by the number of people playing the sport in a certain country, it might be enlightening for you to look at these stats:
http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/bigcount/registeredplayers.html

Remember that we're talking about a sport that's about one thousand times more competitive globally than ice hockey. Uruguay's football team is way better than Japan's. Spain's football team is way better than England's. Uruguay has 41,800 registered football players. They went to the top-16 in the last World Cup, and they went to the top-4 in 2010. Going into the top-4 in the World Cup of football is a more prestigious achievement by miles than winning the Olympic gold medal in a globally marginal sport like ice hockey.

There's more to international sports than the size of your "pool to draw from". Things like coaching, commitment, discipline, professional preparation and doping. All of these things were top-notch in the former Soviet Union and DDR (especially the doping part). The results could be seen in the Soviet hockey teams of the 1980s just as well as they can be seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Summer_Olympics_medal_table
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Winter_Olympics#Medal_table

West Germany had 60 million people. East Germany had 17 million (they had 102 medals in the summer Olympics with a population that was 10 million lower than Canada's and 230 million lower than USA's). West Germany's "pool to draw from" was vastly superior compared to East Germany, but that didn't show in those medal tables, cause those West Germans, unlike their eastern neighbors, had a thing called "freedom". Just like the Canadians did, and the Soviets didn't. Freedom certainly makes for happier people, but it doesn't make for better athletes.

 

[JackSlater]

If you really can't see the difference between the Canada Cups of the 1980s and modern day Olympic hockey, it might be useful for you to actually watch some of those Canada Cup games from the 1980s, cause you're probably too young to remember them. These are the kind of things that went uncalled. A blatant slash to the head of Khomutov who's celebrating his goal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aadw7wDcnfc#t=31m52s

Thanks for the history lesson! How fortunate that I've seen every Canadian game (in addition to many of the games played between other nations) played at those tournaments. I'm pretty lucky to have you around to lecture me about things I've almost certainly seen more than you have.

As someone put it in the comment section, in the modern NHL that's a 20-game suspension, and even back in the day that would have certainly been a 5-minute major, had it been done by a Soviet player. But as it was a Canadian slashing the other guy's head, it was just play on, cause Canada had to win. The Russians, ofcourse, would have cheated at least as much as the Canadians did, had they been lucky enough to get to organize these events and choose the referees. You only have to google "javelin throw in the 1980 olympics", and you can see that they were no amateurs when it came to fixing the results of sporting events.

The teams of Sweden, USA and Russia in the 2010s are nothing compared to the Soviet teams of the 1980s. That's why Canada doesn't need help from the referees or Alan Eagleson anymore to win these best-on-best tournaments. They can dominate those tournaments with neutral refs. And it's a good thing they can, cause the greatness of those Soviet teams was the result of a very sick society, in which players like Makarov, Larionov and Fetisov had to live in a concentration camp away from their families for 11 months every year. This is why Alan Eagleson was certainly fighting for a good cause when he rigged all those tournaments. The west were the good guys in the cold war, and the Canadian society was (and is) vastly superior to the Soviet one, even while the Soviet system's military approach to sports produced a better national team in ice-hockey.

You have to be astoundingly naive and clueless about world history to actually believe that the cold war politics didn't play a part in how these tournaments were organized.

I don't doubt that the refereeing helped Canada more than it helped the Soviets. They refereed in the style of the NHL at the time, which of course the Canadian team would be much more familiar with. IIHF refereeing likewise would have benefited the Soviet team. That said, I've seen nothing to indicate that the tournament was set up in such a way that Canada "had to win". There were ample no calls in the series. See this goal in game three for instance (2:45):



Makarov's hook of Bourque leads directly to the Soviet goal. Referees convinced that Canada "had to win" could pretty easily have blown that play dead, and going through the games you can find many examples on any side. Once again, I don't doubt that Canada benefited more from the situation (the ice size too), and this is part of the reason that I feel quite confident that the Soviet team was stronger than the Canadian team throughout the 80s. The complaints about the various series are vastly overblown though.

If you think that the level of a national team is determined by the number of people playing the sport in a certain country, it might be enlightening for you to look at these stats:
http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/bigcount/registeredplayers.html

Remember that we're talking about a sport that's about one thousand times more competitive globally than ice hockey. Uruguay's football team is way better than Japan's. Spain's football team is way better than England's. Uruguay has 41,800 registered football players. They went to the top-16 in the last World Cup, and they went to the top-4 in 2010. Going into the top-4 in the World Cup of football is a more prestigious achievement by miles than winning the Olympic gold medal in a globally marginal sport like ice hockey.

There's more to international sports than the size of your "pool to draw from". Things like coaching, commitment, discipline, professional preparation and doping. All of these things were top-notch in the former Soviet Union and DDR (especially the doping part). The results could be seen in the Soviet hockey teams of the 1980s just as well as they can be seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Summer_Olympics_medal_table
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Winter_Olympics#Medal_table

West Germany had 60 million people. East Germany had 17 million (they had 102 medals in the summer Olympics with a population that was 10 million lower than Canada's and 230 million lower than USA's). West Germany's "pool to draw from" was vastly superior compared to East Germany, but that didn't show in those medal tables, cause those West Germans, unlike their eastern neighbors, had a thing called "freedom". Just like the Canadians did, and the Soviets didn't. Freedom certainly makes for happier people, but it doesn't make for better athletes.

Level in pretty much any sport is dictated by participation numbers, infrastructure (basically money) and expertise in that sport. Canada had the participation (at that point most young boys in Canada grew up playing hockey), hockey infrastructure beyond any other country, and obviously was not lacking in knowledgeable coaches considering that Canada had been playing the sport far longer than anyone else at that point. Places like Japan can have large scale participation and even infrastructure, but they tend to be lacking in expertise (plus culturally there are limiting factors with sport). Hockey isn't a sport like power lifting or rowing where doping is going to be the make or break factor. You'll notice that in soccer, the sport you mentioned and a sport in which West Germany had large participation, infrastructure and expertise, they were far better than East Germany.

The main thing is that the Soviet system was set up to create the best team possible (through a horrible system), and I think they achieved that. Hockey in Canada was set up to allow as many players as possible the opportunity to play, and that effort was also successful.

 

[VMBM]

I don't doubt that the refereeing helped Canada more than it helped the Soviets. They refereed in the style of the NHL at the time, which of course the Canadian team would be much more familiar with. IIHF refereeing likewise would have benefited the Soviet team. That said, I've seen nothing to indicate that the tournament was set up in such a way that Canada "had to win". There were ample no calls in the series. See this goal in game three for instance (2:45):



Makarov's hook of Bourque leads directly to the Soviet goal. Referees convinced that Canada "had to win" could pretty easily have blown that play dead, and going through the games you can find many examples on any side. Once again, I don't doubt that Canada benefited more from the situation (the ice size too), and this is part of the reason that I feel quite confident that the Soviet team was stronger than the Canadian team throughout the 80s. The complaints about the various series are vastly overblown though.

Interesting that Dan Kelly and Ron Reusch did not see any problems with that goal though. Also, the Soviets seemed to suddenly get a lot of penalties in that game when they had built that 3-0 lead, some of them quite ridiculous (e.g. Gretzky's 'mega dive'). It's as if Koharski was fooled by the dives of Team Canada's players, but it had to be some more serious infringement against the Soviet players so that he would call it.

Anyway, none of the three final games was as bad as the round-robin game; Mike Noeth was scandalous in that, and this was probably the reason why the Soviets 'requested' Koharski for the final.

I'm pretty sure Eagleson did everything he could to make it as smooth as possible for Team Canada; there were some complaints already during the 1976 tournament that Canada was favoured (schedule, traveling). It does not mean that Canada "needed to cheat to win" (e.g. in 1976, they were the best team & in the 1984 semi-final Canada was the better team), but it's not like the Canada Cup was an ideal best-on-best tournament, no matter how great some of the games that were played were. Unfortunately, because the Soviets and maybe some other countries as well felt that CC was 'their' tournament and 'not ours', they did not always have their strongest possible team, like in the case of the Soviets in 1976. Some even claim that the 1984 CC Soviet team wasn't their best possible, although I don't fully agree with that; only Fetisov's absence (injury) was a really notable deficiency. I don't think Czechoslovakia's performance in the 1984 tournament was a true indication of their skills either, but rather of their motivation and commitment; the 1985 WHC held in Prague - which they won, of course - was just more important for them that season.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Interesting that Dan Kelly and Ron Reusch did not see any problems with that goal though.

Doesn't that suggest that the officiating was consistent with how most games were called during that era?

I'm pretty sure Eagleson did everything he could to make it as smooth as possible for Team Canada; there were some complaints already during the 1976 tournament that Canada was favoured (schedule, traveling).

The thing is that even if Eagleson did want to fix the officiating he did not have the power alone to do it as that would require a coordinated conspiracy with a number of officials over the years. I find it laughable when people suggest that a ref would be lauded in Canada for cheating to help our team to win. The exact opposite is true, their career would be over and they would be vilified. That doesn't mean the officiating was perfect and it never is, but to suggest that there was an intentional action to cheat anyone out of winning the Canada Cups is just not true.

it's not like the Canada Cup was an ideal best-on-best tournament

It was not, but we have never had an ideal best on best tournament. The size of the ice surface most often used at the Olympics clearly gives the European teams an advantage, but I've never once heard a European poster complain about that. The funny thing is that back when the CCup was started not only was there no other country or governing body interested in organizing a best on best tournament, there was a well documented and undeniable effort under way to outright ban Canada's best players from even setting foot on the ice at an "international" tournament. Canada did the only thing we could do and organized our own best on best and when you do that inevitably you are going to pull every loser out of the weeds to question your intentions and call you a cheater.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

If you think that the level of a national team is determined by the number of people playing the sport in a certain country, it might be enlightening for you to look at these stats:
http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/bigcount/registeredplayers.html

Remember that we're talking about a sport that's about one thousand times more competitive globally than ice hockey. Uruguay's football team is way better than Japan's. Spain's football team is way better than England's. Uruguay has 41,800 registered football players. They went to the top-16 in the last World Cup, and they went to the top-4 in 2010. Going into the top-4 in the World Cup of football is a more prestigious achievement by miles than winning the Olympic gold medal in a globally marginal sport like ice hockey.

There's more to international sports than the size of your "pool to draw from". Things like coaching, commitment, discipline, professional preparation and doping. All of these things were top-notch in the former Soviet Union and DDR (especially the doping part). The results could be seen in the Soviet hockey teams of the 1980s just as well as they can be seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Summer_Olympics_medal_table
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Winter_Olympics#Medal_table

West Germany had 60 million people. East Germany had 17 million (they had 102 medals in the summer Olympics with a population that was 10 million lower than Canada's and 230 million lower than USA's). West Germany's "pool to draw from" was vastly superior compared to East Germany, but that didn't show in those medal tables, cause those West Germans, unlike their eastern neighbors, had a thing called "freedom". Just like the Canadians did, and the Soviets didn't. Freedom certainly makes for happier people, but it doesn't make for better athletes.

First of all, I have no idea how accurate those numbers are, but I do still see a correlation between participation and national team success. Are there other factors? Sure there are. For example in the USA a number of top athletes may play hockey in the winter but then choose another more popular sport to specialize in when they get older. Other things like how many months of the year is the climate conducive to training in that particular sport. For example in some countries people can play soccer year round and others the summer season is very short. Lastly there is no equivalent to Canadian hockey in soccer, where one country has such a vastly larger infrastructure and participation level as compared to the others (although the USA is catching up).
Participation rates are not the only factor but they are a major factor.

 

[Jussi]

People STILL complaining about the reffing in the 87 CC need to watch 80's games from World Championships as well. 80's refereeing in general was very far from zero tolerance hockey. I watched Finland's game from the 1990 Worlds and hooking in general wasn't called much. It was very rampant. Not to mention that there was only one ref.

 

[Macman]

People STILL complaining about the reffing in the 87 CC need to watch 80's games from World Championships as well. 80's refereeing in general was very far from zero tolerance hockey. I watched Finland's game from the 1990 Worlds and hooking in general wasn't called much. It was very rampant. Not to mention that there was only one ref.

Exactly. People are viewing 30- and 40-year-old YouTube clips through a modern lens. Obstruction was encouraged. In the IIHF, a clean body check would more than likely result in a penalty. In the NHL, you'd pretty much have to gut someone to earn a penalty in a close game or overtime. You could hook someone and ride them up ice. Interference was rampant in international play. The game has changed, folks. People need to get over it.

 

[Jablkon]

The reason Canada has always been so dominant at best on best is because we have always had the best roster of players because we have the most kids playing hockey and thus the biggest pool to draw from. Certainly doesn't mean Canada will win every tournament but it's not really rocket science in figuring out that we will win a lot of them.

If you did not held Hockey summit in 1999 you would draw from average pool and barely won half of what you won, if any.....Your argument proved to be completely wrong in 90s

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

If you did not held Hockey summit in 1999 you would draw from average pool and barely won half of what you won, if any.....Your argument proved to be completely wrong in 90s

Why? Because we lost in '96 and '98?

 

[Jablkon]

Why? Because we lost in '96 and '98?

Not just because you lost, but because of the quality and attitude of the players. I dont know whether it is true or not but many people said about Canada in that times that Hockey Canada just relied upon (generally) huge amount of players where they simply have to find some super talents.

I agree you would be medal contender probably every time, but Sweden and USA would be far ahead of you considering their development programms.....

 

[VMBM]

The thing is that even if Eagleson did want to fix the officiating he did not have the power alone to do it as that would require a coordinated conspiracy with a number of officials over the years. I find it laughable when people suggest that a ref would be lauded in Canada for cheating to help our team to win. The exact opposite is true, their career would be over and they would be vilified. That doesn't mean the officiating was perfect and it never is, but to suggest that there was an intentional action to cheat anyone out of winning the Canada Cups is just not true.

And you think that only bribing a referee will make him favour the other team?

The Canada Cup final [games] were all played in Canada, in front of (pro-)Canadian people. That can put a lot of pressure on an official - especially if he's Canadian and/or an NHL referee. I don't know what was exactly wrong with Mike Noeth in the CAN vs. USSR round robin game in 1987, but his officiating got even Dan Kelly eventually uttering something like, "I'm cheering for Canada, but that was ridiculous".

The complaints in 1976 and 1981 had more to do with things like traveling; i.e. Canada did not have to travel as much as e.g. the Soviets had to and they played against the easier opponents (Finland, USA...) first, whereas USSR faced the best non-Canadian opponents (Czechoslovakia, Sweden...) first. Might not seem that big a deal, but that kind of a 'pattern' still raised questions...

People STILL complaining about the reffing in the 87 CC need to watch 80's games from World Championships as well. 80's refereeing in general was very far from zero tolerance hockey. I watched Finland's game from the 1990 Worlds and hooking in general wasn't called much. It was very rampant. Not to mention that there was only one ref.

Exactly. People are viewing 30- and 40-year-old YouTube clips through a modern lens. Obstruction was encouraged. In the IIHF, a clean body check would more than likely result in a penalty. In the NHL, you'd pretty much have to gut someone to earn a penalty in a close game or overtime. You could hook someone and ride them up ice. Interference was rampant in international play. The game has changed, folks. People need to get over it.

Yeah, that's exactly it!

I certainly remember that people were complaining in 1987 too, and it has very little to do with the 'standards of refereeing in 1987' or something like that.

It's okay to allow rough stuff (even if it might favour the other team somewhat), if it's done equally, but if the referee falls for nonsense like this, but a few moments later lets go things like this and this, it is frustrating and does not seem fair.

Just a little statistical fact: after Alan Eagleson suddenly came up with his 'no European referees in the 'medal' games' rule during the 1984 Canada Cup, there were still five games played between USSR and Canada in 1984 and 1987; 'as it happens', Canada had the advantage in power plays in 4 of the games, whereas 1 game was even (g2 of the 1987 final). And having seen all of those games, yeah, it was not fair IMO.

Whether it is fruitful at all to complain about things that happened 30-40 years ago, that is another question, but it can be sometimes reminded about the conditions in which the best-on-best tournaments were played back then, at least when you see the "Canada has always been the best" praise. Play those games in Moscow, or heck, in Switzerland, with non-NHL refs, and how many tournaments would Canada have won?

 

[Jablkon]

And you think that only bribing a referee will make him favour the other team?

The complaints in 1976 and 1981 had more to do with things like traveling; i.e. Canada did not have to travel as much as e.g. the Soviets had to and they played against the easier opponents (Finland, USA...) first, whereas USSR faced the best non-Canadian opponents (Czechoslovakia, Sweden...) first. Might not seem that big a deal, but that kind of a 'pattern' still raised questions...

Home team staying in one arena is also ordinary practise in WHC IMO. It is definetely advantage but generally acceptable. "Draws" (why to call it draw when there is no draw in WCs will always be the issue. I do not really care but if Tretiak was correct, everything is set up in a way that Canada can meet USA just in final of WC16. this is probably for business purpose, however the advantage ot that is undisputed and really unfair IMO.....

 

[canuck2010]

I find it interesting that the IIHF gets off scott free in this discussion. They were corrupt and to this day are still only concerned with lining their pockets. As we all know the IIHF ensured that Canada's best players were not able to play in international events until 1977. They were more concerned with money and protecting their brand, the so called World Championship than anything else.

Interestly enough it was a Canadian that did his utmost to ensure that better Canadian hockey players couldn't take part. It was a nice little European tournament run exactly the way they wanted to run it.

 

[Theokritos]

Interestly enough it was a Canadian that did his utmost to ensure that better Canadian hockey players couldn't take part.

Who do you mean?

 

[canuck2010]

I should also point out that the IIHF was happy to cosy up to that other upright and honest broker the IOC.

The FIFA business model is based on the IOC. Don't talk to me about fixing anything. THe fix was in for decades.

 

[canuck2010]

My apologies to everyone. I was thinking back quite a few years and had my facts jumbled. The person I was referring to was Bunny Ahearne and he was of course not Canadian.

 

[Macman]

My apologies to everyone. I was thinking back quite a few years and had my facts jumbled. The person I was referring to was Bunny Ahearne and he was of course not Canadian.

He despised Canadian hockey and did everything he could to screw it.

 

[Theokritos]

My apologies to everyone. I was thinking back quite a few years and had my facts jumbled. The person I was referring to was Bunny Ahearne and he was of course not Canadian.

Perhaps you got him mixed up with Avery Brundage (IOC) from the USA.

 

[canuck2010]

Perhaps you got him mixed up with Avery Brundage (IOC) from the USA.

No both Brundage and Ahearn were crooks and did all they could to obstruct Canadian hockey internationally. Canada was a threat to their power when it cam to hockey. Sort of the Sepp Blatters of their day.