Ok, finally I have enough time to do this...
The ~only~ difference is that the Soviets deployed five-man units, vs the modern style where you have the 3 forwards on a line, and then a defensive pair that may not be the same pair each time.
Both can play the Soviet-inspired puck possession/East-West/Regrouping system.
Wings centers are infamous for having to be two-way forwards, with their centers (like Fedorov, Larionov, Dats, Zetterberg, Yzerman, etc.) acting as a third defender. Even if you watch Datsyuk today, he's the first guy back if a D pinches, and he often is back quickly with the two defenders. Not quite a rover, but definitely very Soviet school in terms of centreman responsibility.
It's NOT the same and I have already explained it once and everything I said was completely ignored and completely un-countered.
The possession game the Wings play (and Hawks today) is an adaptation of some of the European Unit possession play philosophies onto the more rigid North American positional play.
The system the Wings played as a team was still based on the concept of lw/c/rw/ld/rd (they each had their own zones on the ice) with either the center or right wing being the biggest moving part while the left wing or center was responsible for a Dman, if he left his "zone" to attack.
And Lidstrom at even strength rarely attacked and if he did he usually did so as the 4th player/trailer or if he was actually the one that gained the offensive zone, he slowed up and re-establised his left Dman position.
The Russian five/Green unit didn't follow positions at all except on a faceoff. It was just one big cycle with no zone or positional restrictions. It's about getting to open ice no matter where it was and moving the puck there.
Both Dmen leading an attack with the leftwinger while the center and rightwinger played a Dmen was a common occurrence.
There's even a great video out there of them passing the puck all around and moving so much that the end result is a 2 on 1 with Fetisov and Konstantinov.
And AGAIN, easy question...if what the Russian Five played and what the Wings played as a team were the same, then why was there even a need or want to have the Russian Five in the first place.
The only thing that was the same was the idea of maintaining the puck on their sticks, after that, it was a completely whole other ballgame.
If it wasn't, then there would be absolutely no reason to have a video or videos of them doing it. You could just 10 minutes of any Wings game and show that.
Sorry, Lidstrom wasn't the strongest possession guy. He played well in a possession system giving and receiving passes.
No, Lidstrom's strongest asset for Detroit was in transition, not possession.
Dan even mentioned a quote from Ray Ferraro (who's still a tool btw) that actually got it right for a change. Lidstrom was a very good wheel for them. He got the puck out of the zone and up to his forwards smartly and safely.
Lidstrom at his best would defuse a defensive situation and then quickly move the puck out of the zone tape to tape to a forward. Playing with the puck was NOT his game and never was.
I thought you said he was great at individual possession? Who was in on the possessing with him if it was styled after the Soviets-- and how did I miss someone else doing this in Boston before Scotty remolded the Wings?
He was and the best example today is watching Karlsson. Watch how much the puck is actually on his stick, Bourque was the same way and it's a hell of a lot more than the puck was on Lidstrom's stick.
Bourque would move up the ice, he would use give and goes and trade off with other positions as he did it. He was playing open concept while the rest of his team would still play positionally.
If he didn't think something was going to work, he peeled back, made back passes and started all over again meanwhile controlling the puck and the game almost on his own. In his prime, it was a thing of beauty to watch (or as a Habs fans, it was a freaking nightmare) and Harvey did it even better.
It's a system and philosophy. This is a semantics argument from you. It is designed to keep possession and control the game-- and to create opportunities for them. The teams who are very good at it spend far more time in their offensive zone than back, but sure, if you insist that's a defensive strategy-- the best defense is offense, well, okay.
It's not semantics. It's understanding and not understanding and if you honestly take a minute to actually think about what I'm saying here, you will understand why Bowman, a bigtime line matcher and defensive first coach, was such a proponent of a possession system. A system that allows you to get the very most out of those line matches.
J. Martin is known as one of the foremost and stuffiest defensive first coaches around and you know what system he prefers? Do you need 3 guesses? That's right, puck possesssion.
And that attack, when they had the advantage, wasn't styled on N-S or dump-in play, but on keeping the puck. The Wings are quite infamous for their East-West style. How is this new to you?
They didn't always attack. If something wasn't looking good, they retreated with the puck instead of dumping it in. Some coaches advocate dumping the puck in at that point instead of retreating. The idea being to make them attack you from 200'. With puck possession the idea is they don't get to attack you at all.
When the Wings had a lead, were they attacking? No, they were not! They kept puck possession as much as possible controlling the game and controlling the clock.
I seriously IMPLORE you to sit down/email/twitter/something with some professional coaches that can set you straight as obviously you're not going to take my opinion on it.
Also, I'm a Habs fan, I absolutely detest the Bruins and was physically ill when they hoisted the Cup. I hated Bourque with a passion but I damned well had to respect him. Unlike quite a few in this thread (Wings fans trying to prop up their boy) I have no horse in this race.
I used to have Potvin ahead of Lidstrom until about 2008 when I felt Nick deserved to be put ahead. He does not however deserve to be put ahead of Bourque IMO.
Bourque was the better all-around player, was just at a higher level and was at a higher level for quite a bit longer.