Most dominant era in international hockey history?

[VMBM]

Well, just to let you know, too... The Soviets were beating up on Team Canada, that didn't consist of Canadian NHL players.. it consisted of our Junior players.

If you're seriously claiming that the best Canadians did not play at the Canada Cups, learn your facts. Seriously.

BUT if you're just talking about the Olympics... well, why? As far as I'm concerned, the Olympics between 1972 and 1984 are among the worst big hockey tournaments ever anyway. No Canada at all (1972, 1976) or at best, a weak one (1980, 1984), no player with any NHL/'professional' experience was allowed to play ... even the World Championships were a clearly superior tournament (rosters, plus the fact that the good teams played vs. each other twice and not just once like in the Olympics...).

ohhhh and look what happens, when other nations are able to send THEIR best players??? since 98, Russia only has 2 medals. 2 Bronze Medals, and nothing to show for. Why??? cause they are not beating up on Junior players, cause other countries are on a equal level playing field.

Oh boy. The Soviet Union of the late 1970s and 1980s was a totally different kettle of fish from the later Russian teams. I hate when people use Russia's (lack of) success as proof that the Soviets "weren't that good".

Team USSR would still be a favourite to win just about any best-on-best tournament - or at least if they were as good as they were in 1981-84.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Oh boy. The Soviet Union of the late 1970s and 1980s was a totally different kettle of fish from the later Russian teams. I hate when people use Russia's (lack of) success as proof that the Soviets "weren't that good".

Team USSR would still be a favourite to win just about any best-on-best tournament - or at least if they were as good as they were in 1981-84.

In my opinion if any of the contemporary American, Swedish, Finnish, Russian or Czech national teams had the opportunity to play and practice together as much as the Soviets did then they would certainly be favourites to be finalists in any best on best tournament. Not saying they would beat Canada regularly, but they certainly
would give us a run for our money.

 

[Rob]

BUT if you're just talking about the Olympics... well, why? As far as I'm concerned, the Olympics between 1972 and 1984 are among the worst big hockey tournaments ever anyway. No Canada at all (1972, 1976) or at best, a weak one (1980, 1984), no player with any NHL/'professional' experience was allowed to play ... even the World Championships were a clearly superior tournament (rosters, plus the fact that the good teams played vs. each other twice and not just once like in the Olympics...).

Good point. The World Championships were a more prestigious tournament back the due to the player restrictions placed on capitalist nations.

Oh boy. The Soviet Union of the late 1970s and 1980s was a totally different kettle of fish from the later Russian teams. I hate when people use Russia's (lack of) success as proof that the Soviets "weren't that good".

Yep, no comparison.

 

[VMBM]

In my opinion if any of the contemporary American, Swedish, Finnish, Russian or Czech national teams had the opportunity to play and practice together as much as the Soviets did then they would certainly be favourites to be finalists in any best on best tournament. Not saying they would beat Canada regularly, but they certainly
would give us a run for our money.

Czech national team? You have to be kidding. You can't compare the modern Czech team to the best Soviet teams. The 40 something Jagr is still probably their best player, unless it's Voracek. And Finland doesn't have a Kharlamov or a Makarov right now, and neither do the Americans nor the Swedes (do they even have a Mikhailov?).

Yes, part of what made the Soviets so good was the system. Big revelation! But they still were clearly the 2nd best team on paper (Canada always had the most 'stars', I'll give that much). Kharlamov, Petrov, Mikhailov, Tretiak, Maltsev, Yakushev, Vasiliev, Kapustin, Balderis, later the Green Unit, Bykov etc... some pretty legendary players.

Furthermore, we don't have any examples (as far as I know) of how the Soviet system would have worked anywhere else - unless the old Czechoslovakia counts (not totally the same but somewhat near).

Good point. The World Championships were a more prestigious tournament back the due to the player restrictions placed on capitalist nations.

The 1976 Olympics was probably the worst big tournament since the 1950s, as far as hockey is concerned, even though the USSR-CZE game could be called a classic. USSR and Czechoslovakia basically had their best, as well as some of the weak teams (West Germany, Poland and the like) but e.g. the Swedes did not even bother to send a team, and Finland was missing many of our best players, who either played in the WHA and/or were not allowed to participate due to 'being professionals'. Still, Finland should have been able to get the bronze, but no, we lost it by 'goal-relation' (not sure about the term, but it is not quite the same as goal-differential). There was some controversy about that and about refereeing (Dombrovski) in the FIN-USA game.

Some of the World Championships were pretty weak too (1975 WHC and 1976 WHC especially), but, like said, at least the good teams played against each other twice, so there was much less chance for a fluke.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Czech national team? You have to be kidding. You can't compare the modern Czech team to the best Soviet teams. The 40 something Jagr is still probably their best player, unless it's Voracek. And Finland doesn't have a Kharlamov or a Makarov right now, and neither do the Americans nor the Swedes (do they even have a Mikhailov?).

Yes, part of what made the Soviets so good was the system. Big revelation! But they still were clearly the 2nd best team on paper (Canada always had the most 'stars', I'll give that much). Kharlamov, Petrov, Mikhailov, Tretiak, Maltsev, Yakushev, Vasiliev, Kapustin, Balderis, later the Green Unit, Bykov etc... some pretty legendary players.

Furthermore, we don't have any examples (as far as I know) of how the Soviet system would have worked anywhere else - unless the old Czechoslovakia counts (not totally the same but somewhat near).

We know from when the USSR collapsed that players who looked great on the Soviet team looked much less impressive as individuals when they played in the NHL. The same would bear true today if our measure for evaluating players was tournaments where one team had vastly more time preparing than the others. Under those conditions you'd probably have people saying guys like Ovy and Malkin were the best ever to play the sport.

 

[VMBM]

We know from when the USSR collapsed that players who looked great on the Soviet team looked much less impressive as individuals when they played in the NHL. The same would bear true today if our measure for evaluating players was tournaments where one team had vastly more time preparing than the others. Under those conditions you'd probably have people saying guys like Ovy and Malkin were the best ever to play the sport.

Excuse my French, but what a load of rubbish!

You know full well that the best Soviet players like Makarov, Fetisov were either over 30 or near 30, when they finally had the chance to play in the NHL. Already at the 1989 WHC, they were looking past their prime; the Kamensky-Bykov-Khomutov line was clearly better than KLM in that tournament. And considering how well e.g. Bure and Fedorov - i.e. who were in their early 20s when they joined - did in the NHL, there's the clear indication right there what the best older Soviet players could have done in their prime. Namely, as far as I'm concerned, neither Bure nor Fedorov was as good as Makarov or Kharlamov. Even Igor Larionov, whom I've never considered a truly great player, was one of the key players on the Red Wings in the late 1990s, when he was about 35 or so. The only thing he had over Makarov or Fetisov was that he aged better.

Interesting that you bring Ovy into discussion, since I think it's especially North Americans who think that he is already the greatest Russian player ever, which I don't definitely agree with.

And indicating that today's Czech national team is anywhere near as good (on paper) as Team USSR of 1970s/1980s is just wrong, and you should know it.
No amount of 'preparing time' will make a team great and make them be able to be successful year after year, if the team/players aren't great already beforehand.

PS. Some Canadian players have looked a lot less impressive when they've been taken away from their NHL environment/team; Guy Lafleur, Frank Mahovlic, Ken Dryden, Marcel Dionne, to name a few. Sidney Crosby too.

 

[Jablkon]

Czech national team? You have to be kidding. You can't compare the modern Czech team to the best Soviet teams. The 40 something Jagr is still probably their best player, unless it's Voracek. And Finland doesn't have a Kharlamov or a Makarov right now, and neither do the Americans nor the Swedes (do they even have a Mikhailov?).

Yes, part of what made the Soviets so good was the system. Big revelation! But they still were clearly the 2nd best team on paper (Canada always had the most 'stars', I'll give that much). Kharlamov, Petrov, Mikhailov, Tretiak, Maltsev, Yakushev, Vasiliev, Kapustin, Balderis, later the Green Unit, Bykov etc... some pretty legendary players.

Furthermore, we don't have any examples (as far as I know) of how the Soviet system would have worked anywhere else - unless the old Czechoslovakia counts (not totally the same but somewhat near).



The 1976 Olympics was probably the worst big tournament since the 1950s, as far as hockey is concerned, even though the USSR-CZE game could be called a classic. USSR and Czechoslovakia basically had their best, as well as some of the weak teams (West Germany, Poland and the like) but e.g. the Swedes did not even bother to send a team, and Finland was missing many of our best players, who either played in the WHA and/or were not allowed to participate due to 'being professionals'. Still, Finland should have been able to get the bronze, but no, we lost it by 'goal-relation' (not sure about the term, but it is not quite the same as goal-differential). There was some controversy about that and about refereeing (Dombrovski) in the FIN-USA game.

Some of the World Championships were pretty weak too (1975 WHC and 1976 WHC especially), but, like said, at least the good teams played against each other twice, so there was much less chance for a fluke.

Soviet system was pretty much uncopyable. Even guys from Czechoslovakia during communism did not spent so much time in basecamps as russian did. Bukac was considered as a rough coach, still nowhere near close to Tikhonov or Tarasov. For sure present Czech team could not reach CCCP level even if they follow same drill. Some players would make one or two step ups, still not enought to reach talent of best russian players ever. But the most important thing is that they would simply denied these methods. It was just possible in that time in that country. If you apply these methods to Czech republic 2004 they would mostly be pissed, demoralized and mad of coach

 

[Macman]

As anyone who watched international hockey during the '80s should be able to tell you if they're being honest, Canada and the Soviets were about as evenly matched as you can get. The notion that one was dominant during that period is fantasy. What Canada is doing now during a time of greater parity and similar circumstances for everyone is far more impressive.

 

[1Gold Standard]

As anyone who watched international hockey during the '80s should be able to tell you if they're being honest, Canada and the Soviets were about as evenly matched as you can get. The notion that one was dominant during that period is fantasy. What Canada is doing now during a time of greater parity and similar circumstances for everyone is far more impressive.

Exactly. 10x more impressive.

 

[gwh]

I would go for the 63-90 soviets:

WC
28 appearances, 23 wins, 3 silver, 2 Bronze.

Olympics (64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88)
7 appearances, 6 gold, 1 silver.

 

[Macman]

I would go for the 63-90 soviets:

WC
28 appearances, 23 wins, 3 silver, 2 Bronze.

Olympics (64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88)
7 appearances, 6 gold, 1 silver.

Mostly meaningless numbers in light of the obvious reasons repeated a million times here.

 

[gwh]

Because it took breakup of the soviet union for Canada to actually win something?

That is by far the most dominant period on any sport. The fact that you are all Canadians in denial doesn't quite change that nearly 30 year streak of wins.

/thread

 

[tony d]

It's been a good era for Canadian hockey for sure. Great to see.

 

[canuck2010]

Because it took breakup of the soviet union for Canada to actually win something?

That is by far the most dominant period on any sport. The fact that you are all Canadians in denial doesn't quite change that nearly 30 year streak of wins.

/thread

Do we really have to go into this again?

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

You know full well that the best Soviet players like Makarov, Fetisov were either over 30 or near 30, when they finally had the chance to play in the NHL. Already at the 1989 WHC, they were looking past their prime; the Kamensky-Bykov-Khomutov line was clearly better than KLM in that tournament. And considering how well e.g. Bure and Fedorov - i.e. who were in their early 20s when they joined - did in the NHL, there's the clear indication right there what the best older Soviet players could have done in their prime. Namely, as far as I'm concerned, neither Bure nor Fedorov was as good as Makarov or Kharlamov. Even Igor Larionov, whom I've never considered a truly great player, was one of the key players on the Red Wings in the late 1990s, when he was about 35 or so. The only thing he had over Makarov or Fetisov was that he aged better.

Interesting that you bring Ovy into discussion, since I think it's especially North Americans who think that he is already the greatest Russian player ever, which I don't definitely agree with.

And indicating that today's Czech national team is anywhere near as good (on paper) as Team USSR of 1970s/1980s is just wrong, and you should know it.
No amount of 'preparing time' will make a team great and make them be able to be successful year after year, if the team/players aren't great already beforehand.

PS. Some Canadian players have looked a lot less impressive when they've been taken away from their NHL environment/team; Guy Lafleur, Frank Mahovlic, Ken Dryden, Marcel Dionne, to name a few. Sidney Crosby too.

I think Ovy is the greatest Russian / Soviet goal scorer of all time (with Bure as a close 2nd), but they won't get the recognition they deserve by many because of the lack of Russia's team success at the elite level. And you're wrong about the Czech team. If they played and practiced together all the time and we only saw them at International Tournaments then the team and the players would look very good.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Because it took breakup of the soviet union for Canada to actually win something?

That is by far the most dominant period on any sport. The fact that you are all Canadians in denial doesn't quite change that nearly 30 year streak of wins.

/thread

Canada was the best before the USSR broke up and they have been the best since. The USSR / Russia have only made it to the finals in 3 of the 12 major tournaments, I'm not even sure they can claim to be 2nd best. The USA have made it to four finals and the Swede's have also made it to three.

 

[VMBM]

I think Ovy is the greatest Russian / Soviet goal scorer of all time (with Bure as a close 2nd), but they won't get the recognition they deserve by many because of the lack of Russia's team success at the elite level. And you're wrong about the Czech team. If they played and practiced together all the time and we only saw them at International Tournaments then the team and the players would look very good.

Okay, that's it for me.

 

[gwh]

Canada was the best before the USSR broke up and they have been the best since.

Sure.

Find any sport with more wins in any 30 year period comparing to Soviets in hockey.

Example: Curling is only played in Canada. You are still far less dominant in Curling, even though almost nobody else plays the bloody sport.

The fact that you are all here whining like this is a massive ego cornerstone of your being. Well, kind of funny.

Most wins in any team in a 30 year period = Soviets in hockey = probably the most dominant period of any team sport.

You d have more fun comparing US basketball record 1984-2014 for "streak of the lifetime award". Even that is ONLY 10 wins in 16 events. If you follow basketball, you might know how lopsided the US games are... Well, still losing to soviet hockey

 

[Macman]

Sure. Find any sport with more wins in any 30 year period comparing to Soviets in hockey.

The Harlem Globetrotters?

Pretty apt comparison when you think about it. Canada and most others had about as much chance of beating the Soviets with the rosters they were forced to play with most of the time during that period as the Washington Generals do with the Globetrotters every night.

 

[gwh]

The Harlem Globetrotters?

Weak... Giving up already?

 

[NyQuil]

It's not very hard.

Canada in hockey from 1920 - 1952.

19 World Championships, 15 gold, 3 silver.

7 Olympics, 6 gold, 1 silver (losing to a Canadian populated Great Britain).

It's pretty easy to rack up the wins when there isn't any legitimate competition, as the Soviets proved soon afterwards.

You don't see Canadians running around beating their chests about this period of time because a giant asterisk exists next to the results, as with any international hockey results until 1998.

 

[Canuckistani]

Find any sport with more wins in any 30 year period comparing to Soviets in hockey.

Yeah it was probably the most dominating era, no question. The crushing Soviet wins at the 1979 Challenge Cup and 1981 Canada Cup (against top-notch opposition) proved that they were not merely beating up lousy teams all the time. But for the most part that's exctly what they were doing.

In many ways the Czech era of dominance (1998-2001) or Canada's run from 2002-2010 were even more impressive given the parity between teams.

Imagine if for 27 years Canada's best (Orr, Howe, Richard, Greztky, Bossy etc) were playing and training together all year and then beating the crap out of eveyone else's amateurs or teams of B/C-squads thrown together a week before a tournament. That would hardly be worth bragging about.

 

[Macman]

Weak... Giving up already?

Of course it's weak. It's a joke. Much like the claim that the Soviets were the most dominant sports team of all time. Russia hasn't won a best-on-best since 1981. It's funny what an opponent with an actual heartbeat can do to shatter myths.

 

[gwh]

It's not very hard.

Canada in hockey from 1920 - 1952.

19 World Championships, 15 gold, 3 silver.

7 Olympics, 6 gold, 1 silver (losing to a Canadian populated Great Britain).

Canada: the year span is longer with 21 wins in 28 competitions, win rate 80.7%

Soviets: 29 wins in 35 competitions. 82.8% winrate and more competitions within the span.

The russians still have it, if you ask me.

Edit: And please, this was probably the 1st alternative i counted. Why do you think I got to curling and basketball?

 

[NyQuil]

Canada: the year span is longer with 21 wins in 28 competitions, win rate 80.7%

Soviets: 29 wins in 35 competitions. 82.8% winrate and more competitions within the span.

The russians still have it, if you ask me.

Wow, that's an impressive 2.1% difference.

I know that my jaw dropped in awe.

The salient point in both cases is that no one cares because the competition wasn't up to snuff.