Red Army

[JT Kreider]

Anyone else catch the documentary? I thought it was really good as most of us don't know the story beyond the '80 olympics. Never realized how good Fetisov actually was.

Also thought it was interesting how hated the Russians were when they first entered the league and how Fetisov and Larianov initially struggled prior to playing for Detroit on that first Cup-winning team.

Bowman took a chance on them because he knew how good they truly were as he got a first hand look at them as a coach in the Super Series.

Click to read more...

 

[JackSlater]

Red Army and Of Miracles and Men are both good recent documentaries giving a bit of a behind the scenes look at the Soviet hockey program. Most of the players are quite engaging (Fetisov and Mikhailov in particular) and any chance to see a great hockey mind like Tarasov is great.

 

[HanSolo]

I saw the trailer for it last night after rewatching Whiplash. Definitely gonna check it out.

 

[octopi]

Anyone else catch the documentary? I thought it was really good as most of us don't know the story beyond the '80 olympics. Never realized how good Fetisov actually was.

Also thought it was interesting how hated the Russians were when they first entered the league and how Fetisov and Larianov initially struggled prior to playing for Detroit on that first Cup-winning team.

Bowman took a chance on them because he knew how good they truly were as he got a first hand look at them as a coach in the Super Series.

Unfortunately it is not playing in a lot of areas.

I live in Calgary and it isn't playing here.

Apparently it had a one or two day run in a short film festival here. Unfortunately I did not realize this at the time, and also was pretty ill and may have not have been able to go anyways. I was under the impression it would be showing in major cities i Ciniplex theaters come February 2015. Unfortunately it is only showing in Vancouver and Toronto in Canada and I'm not willing to buy round trip plane tickets for a movie.

anyone know how I can see this.

 

[KuralySnipes]

Is there a way to check this out on On Demand? Can't find it in theaters.

 

[Yakushev72]

The subject matter is similar, but the focus of these documentaries is different. The ESPN "30 on 30: Of Miracles and Men" tells the story of the literally overnight rise of the Soviet Union to the pinnacle of World hockey under the guidance of Anatoli Tarasov, who created a hockey program out of nothing under orders from Vasily Stalin, son of Josef. He was not allowed to obtain books and films from outside the USSR, and so he had to rely on his own creativity, passion, obsessive drive, and ability to find the strangest analogies to hockey in unrelated activities such as ballet and chess. His players had to endure the most grueling training and conditioning imaginable, and yet they loved him because he earned their trust and respect. Ultimately, however, he refused to knuckle under to the Politburo brass, and was removed from his coaching responsibilities shortly before the 1972 series. Soviet hockey took a turn for the worst after that, culminating in the debacle known as the "Miracle on Ice" at Lake Placid, which chronicled the most significant hockey event in American history through the eyes of the Soviet players (Slava Fetisov visited the Lake Placid rink to relive the experience with his daughter, Anastasia)

I haven't seen the documentary "Red Army," but based on the notes from the Director and reviews, it apparently deals mainly with the relationship between the guys who led the Soviet team in the 1980's - Krutov, Makarov, Larionov, Fetisov and Kasatonov - and coach Viktor Tikhonov, who was Tarasov's ultimate successor. In contrast to Tarasov, who was depicted in "30 on 30" as a creative genius, poet, and friend and confidant to his players, Tikhonov was depicted as a heartless bureaucrat who functioned like an accountant who kept his players confined to training and away from their families for the sake of victories. There may be some oversimplification there, but that is the theme the film apparently espouses. It also apparently covers the Russian players' transition to the NHL at great length.

Whatever their political or national loyalties, hockey fans should appreciate the recognition given to Tarasov and the beautiful hockey that he presented on a World stage.

.

 

[habsrule4eva3089]

Red Army is a gem, terrific documentary, with quite a few laughs also, Fetisov is hilarious.

You see the relationship between Director and Fetisov grow before your eyes, and as it grows so does the honest communication and story telling behind his life story. Fascinating stuff.

 

[VMBM]

Ultimately, however, he refused to knuckle under to the Politburo brass, and was removed from his coaching responsibilities shortly before the 1972 series. Soviet hockey took a turn for the worst after that, culminating in the debacle known as the "Miracle on Ice" at Lake Placid, which chronicled the most significant hockey event in American history through the eyes of the Soviet players (Slava Fetisov visited the Lake Placid rink to relive the experience with his daughter, Anastasia)

Of course, that is such baloney; Soviet hockey was never stronger than in 1978-84, with the exception of that one friggin' tournament in 1980.

No matter what an a**hole Tikhonov possibly was, he still produced maybe the greatest team the world has ever seen; the Soviets were much more difficult to beat during Tikhonov's than during Tarasov's (and Chernyshev's who is sadly always forgotten) time.

 

[Yakushev72]

Of course, that is such baloney; Soviet hockey was never stronger than in 1978-84, with the exception of that one friggin' tournament in 1980.

No matter what an a**hole Tikhonov possibly was, he still produced maybe the greatest team the world has ever seen; the Soviets were much more difficult to beat during Tikhonov's than during Tarasov's (and Chernyshev's who is sadly always forgotten) time.

Tikhonov was a great coach who deserves his rightful place among the best of all international coaches. I have always said that the 1979 Challenge Cup represents the best performance that a Soviet team ever gave in a tournament. Tikhonov also deserves great credit for improving upon and advancing the innovative practice techniques and strategies that he inherited from Tarasov, and he certainly was a great improvement over his immediate predecessors, Kulagin and Loktev.

IMO, the big difference between Tarasov and Tikhonov is that, while they both worked their players like dogs, the players loved and trusted Tarasov, and hated and distrusted Tikhonov. Tarasov greatly overachieved by inspiring and motivating his players at a level far beyond what was evidenced under Tikhonov. Tikhonov inherited a vastly improved hockey infrastructure in comparison to the resources that Tarasov had at his disposal (there were actually indoor rinks to be used by the time Tikhonov took over), but the team never significantly improved over the level reached in 1979, and victories achieved in 1979 and 1981 were followed by losses in the Canada Cup in 1984 and 1987. To borrow the words of Team Captain Boris Mikhailov, Tarasov was a genius and a poet, and Tikhonov was an "accountant." Mikhailov's assessment was clearly shared by the other players that were interviewed in the film. What seemed most telling is that all of his players complained that they were completely burned out under his coaching, as evidenced by the fact that Tretiak retired at age 32.

 

[boris4c]

Still no answer as to where one could watch this?

 

[Yakushev72]

Still no answer as to where one could watch this?

You can watch ESPN 30 on 30 "Of Miracles and Men" on youtube. "Red Army" is still being circulated in NA movie theaters, as far as I know

 

[alce*]

Tikhonov inherited a vastly improved hockey infrastructure in comparison to the resources that Tarasov had at his disposal (there were actually indoor rinks to be used by the time Tikhonov took over), but the team never significantly improved over the level reached in 1979, and victories achieved in 1979 and 1981 were followed by losses in the Canada Cup in 1984 and 1987.

Significantly improved? Seriously? It's a joke? What did you expect them to be? Some sort of hockey gods? One fact that he could maintain such high level of play through all eighties is miracle by itself. Losing in 1987 in Canada, on small ice with arena full of Canada supporters and NHL referees couldn't diminish his achievements.

And if we are comparing Tarasov to Tikhonov, then with all my respect to Tarasov as great club coach, his success as head coach of national team in international competitions were dubious at most. He managed to lose all three tournament in which his team was participated. There were some objective reasons for that of course, but fact is fact, all Soviet team victories at that time were achieved with Chernyshev as head coach. I don't claim of course that there were no Tarasov part in those results as second coach, but only as second coach of national team and coach of CSKA from which there were most players.

 

[Car2014]

Still no answer as to where one could watch this?

I know it has been announced to come out on DVD, BluRay and as VOD in Germany, so it would surprise me if that wasn't the case in Canada.

The number of cinemas showing it here has increased by now, one cinema in a neighbouring city will show it tomorrow and on Tuesday and Wednesday.

 

[Yakushev72]

Significantly improved? Seriously? It's a joke? What did you expect them to be? Some sort of hockey gods? One fact that he could maintain such high level of play through all eighties is miracle by itself. Losing in 1987 in Canada, on small ice with arena full of Canada supporters and NHL referees couldn't diminish his achievements.

And if we are comparing Tarasov to Tikhonov, then with all my respect to Tarasov as great club coach, his success as head coach of national team in international competitions were dubious at most. He managed to lose all three tournament in which his team was participated. There were some objective reasons for that of course, but fact is fact, all Soviet team victories at that time were achieved with Chernyshev as head coach. I don't claim of course that there were no Tarasov part in those results as second coach, but only as second coach of national team and coach of CSKA from which there were most players.

There is a well know axiom that "nothing ever stays the same - it either gets better or it gets worse." Tikhonov's performance as coach reached its peak in 1979, and then continued to slowly get worse after that. That's not to say that the Soviet team wasn't great, just not as good as it could have been if Tarasov or someone of similar capability was in charge.

As you selectively left out, I noted that Tikhonov is one of the best coaches in international history, and his most important contribution was his introduction of double-speed drills and maneuvers to his practices. The players got used to executing skills at such a high pace that even top-level games seemed to go in slow motion by comparison. But he lacked motivational skills, lacked skills as a tactician on the bench, and he built resentment and exhaustion among every player on the bench. Why else would his star players discuss deliberately losing games to get him fired.

Tarasov created Soviet hockey (literally, at Stalin's command) at a time when there were no indoor rinks, and he was forced to simulate playing hockey on dry land. I don't know what you mean when you say that Tarasov "managed to lose all three tournaments in which his team participated?" He won Olympic Gold in 1956, '64, '68 and '72. He lost in 1960, much like Tikhonov lost in 1980. He was relieved of duty just before the 1972 Series, but it was his team that acquitted itself so brilliantly against the best of the NHL. Give Tikhonov his due respect, but give Tarasov more respect!

 

[alce*]

Tarasov created Soviet hockey (literally, at Stalin's command) at a time when there were no indoor rinks, and he was forced to simulate playing hockey on dry land. I don't know what you mean when you say that Tarasov "managed to lose all three tournaments in which his team participated?" He won Olympic Gold in 1956, '64, '68 and '72. He lost in 1960, much like Tikhonov lost in 1980. He was relieved of duty just before the 1972 Series, but it was his team that acquitted itself so brilliantly against the best of the NHL. Give Tikhonov his due respect, but give Tarasov more respect!

He haven't won a single international tournament as head coach. Only as second coach to Chernyshev. Tarasov was head coach only three years from 1958 to 1960. And he lost all those tournaments. By the way he had absolutely no connection to 1956 victory. At that time he wasn't even second coach. You not knowing that fact is kind of showing by itself how Tarasov impact on Soviet hockey was exaggerated by media. All that story about him "creating Soviet hockey" is kind of beautiful, but completely untrue. He was one of many good coaches that had switched from football and especially bandy to ice hockey. He maybe was one of the best, but surely not the only one. I have all the respect to Tarasov as one of legend of Soviet hockey and sport. He was one of the best in his time, Tikhonov was one of the best in his.

 

[Yakushev72]

He haven't won a single international tournament as head coach. Only as second coach to Chernyshev. Tarasov was head coach only three years from 1958 to 1960. And he lost all those tournaments. By the way he had absolutely no connection to 1956 victory. At that time he wasn't even second coach. You not knowing that fact is kind of showing by itself how Tarasov impact on Soviet hockey was exaggerated by media. All that story about him "creating Soviet hockey" is kind of beautiful, but completely untrue. He was one of many good coaches that had switched from football and especially bandy to ice hockey. He maybe was one of the best, but surely not the only one. I have all the respect to Tarasov as one of legend of Soviet hockey and sport. He was one of the best in his time, Tikhonov was one of the best in his.

Everyone knows that Chernyshev was a figurehead, and that Tarasov was the real force behind the bench. CSKA was always the anchor of the national team during Soviet times - you should know that! You have your opinion and I have mine, but the fact is, the movies show that the players who played under both coaches (Mikhailov, Petrov, Fetisov, Tretiak) are in unison that Tarasov was the heart and soul of Soviet hockey. They speak only with disdain of Tikhonov, although I would agree that that was unfair to him. Tikhonov was just doing the job assigned to him, but he failed to get the very best out of an incredibly talented group of players.

 

[alce*]

Everyone knows that Chernyshev was a figurehead, and that Tarasov was the real force behind the bench. CSKA was always the anchor of the national team during Soviet times - you should know that! You have your opinion and I have mine, but the fact is, the movies show that the players who played under both coaches (Mikhailov, Petrov, Fetisov, Tretiak) are in unison that Tarasov was the heart and soul of Soviet hockey. They speak only with disdain of Tikhonov, although I would agree that that was unfair to him. Tikhonov was just doing the job assigned to him, but he failed to get the very best out of an incredibly talented group of players.

Have you ever bother to read posts that you replay to? Of course I know that most players in NT were from CSKA. I especially mention it in my first post. Tarasov would never get a job as head coach of national team otherwise. But fact is simple this "figurehead" Chernyshev had won two of the first four international tournaments of Soviet team without any help from Tarasov. Then he was replaced by Tarasov who had failed three tournaments in the row. After getting his job back Chernyshev had won ten of eleven tournaments. Tarasov was a great club coach, but quite mediocre NT coach. Although I'm sure he was a great help to Chernyshev as second coach. You like your myths, I get it, everyone likes heroes, but it still possible to have them and be realistic simultaneously. Tarasov was one of the very important and prominent person in beginning of Soviet hockey, maybe even most important, but he was one of many such people.

I don't give a crap if those players have liked Tarasov better than Tikhonov. Seriously, don't give a crap at all. Maybe Tarasov was a good guy and Thikhonov wasn't. It doesn't change that fact that it was Tikhonov who created best Soviet team in history. Your claim that he "failed to get the very best from them" is completely unproven. For what I know he actually managed to get all they have in them. Literally all.

 

[Yakushev72]

Have you ever bother to read posts that you replay to? Of course I know that most players in NT were from CSKA. I especially mention it in my first post. Tarasov would never get a job as head coach of national team otherwise. But fact is simple this "figurehead" Chernyshev had won two of the first four international tournaments of Soviet team without any help from Tarasov. Then he was replaced by Tarasov who had failed three tournaments in the row. After getting his job back Chernyshev had won ten of eleven tournaments. Tarasov was a great club coach, but quite mediocre NT coach. Although I'm sure he was a great help to Chernyshev as second coach. You like your myths, I get it, everyone likes heroes, but it still possible to have them and be realistic simultaneously. Tarasov was one of the very important and prominent person in beginning of Soviet hockey, maybe even most important, but he was one of many such people.

I don't give a crap if those players have liked Tarasov better than Tikhonov. Seriously, don't give a crap at all. Maybe Tarasov was a good guy and Thikhonov wasn't. It doesn't change that fact that it was Tikhonov who created best Soviet team in history. Your claim that he "failed to get the very best from them" is completely unproven. For what I know he actually managed to get all they have in them. Literally all.

When you said "do you expect them to be gods" in an earlier post, I interpreted it as meaning that you did not expect Russian athletes to be able to compete against superior beings from the NHL. But how is it that the Challenge Cup team dominated the very same "gods" that you spoke in awe of, as if they were from a different planet? In 1979, the team played with great hunger, but in 1984 and 1987, when the Canadian team challenged the Soviets to take the intensity of the fight to a higher level, the Soviet team failed to meet them. Why? In my opinion, Tikhonov had beaten all of the fight out of them.

 

[alce*]

When you said "do you expect them to be gods" in an earlier post, I interpreted it as meaning that you did not expect Russian athletes to be able to compete against superior beings from the NHL. But how is it that the Challenge Cup team dominated the very same "gods" that you spoke in awe of, as if they were from a different planet? In 1979, the team played with great hunger, but in 1984 and 1987, when the Canadian team challenged the Soviets to take the intensity of the fight to a higher level, the Soviet team failed to meet them. Why? In my opinion, Tikhonov had beaten all of the fight out of them.

You've interpreted my words wrong. They've already were best team in the world. And my word "gods" wasn't about Canadians. I don't even know where do you get such ridiculous idea. Your phrase "never significantly improved" in relation to team that already was best team in history just blew my mind. So I've naturally asked you about whether you expect them to be hockey gods as them to be best team in the world evidently wasn't enough for you.

CC is home tournament of Canada. 100% of arena are home supporters, NHL refereeing, small ice. And what in the end? In 1984 and 1987 there were 6 games, 3 wins of Canada, 2 wins of USSR, 1 draw and equal scoring. I can't be disappointed in those results. If situation was reversed and those matches was played in Moscow, on big ice and Soviet refereeing then what outcome would be in that case? Considering all that I can't agree with your words "failed to meet them(challenges)". Besides, you shouldn't forget that USSR never considered CC as priority in schedule. It wasn't "challenge" for them, it was just invitational tournament for playing in which, if my memory serves me right, USSR even got some monetary compensation.

I see no sign that USSR team could be even better. We never had such vast talent pool as Canada and probably will never have in future as popularity of hockey in Russia is much less than in Canada. USSR development system was superior to Canadian, but it had its limits. It only so much that you can do to overcome that vast difference in talent pools. Actually I think that Tikhonov had taken all that were possible from his players. Maybe he wasn't the easiest man to work with, but he got his job done.

 

[VMBM]

When you said "do you expect them to be gods" in an earlier post, I interpreted it as meaning that you did not expect Russian athletes to be able to compete against superior beings from the NHL. But how is it that the Challenge Cup team dominated the very same "gods" that you spoke in awe of, as if they were from a different planet? In 1979, the team played with great hunger, but in 1984 and 1987, when the Canadian team challenged the Soviets to take the intensity of the fight to a higher level, the Soviet team failed to meet them. Why? In my opinion, Tikhonov had beaten all of the fight out of them.

Aren't you one of them who are always complaining about the refereeing at the 1984 and 1987 Canada Cups? And heck, I agree totally that it wasn't fair & unbiased, although I do maintain that Team Canada played better in the 1984 semi-final.

Speaking of the 1984 tournament, the Soviets were missing the injured Vyacheslav Fetisov, a fairly important player, right? His absence maybe didn't show so much during round-robin, but they would have needed him in the semi-final game (e.g. the Soviet PP sucked throughout the game). Still, it was matchup that could have gone to either team.

In 1987, who did the Soviets have beyond the Green Unit and Bykov's line? On paper, it was one of the weakest teams they had had since the 1960s, especially after Svetlov, who was one of their best in the early part the tournament, was injured. Still, the superstar-filled Team Canada managed to beat them only by one goal with just 1:26 left of game 3 of the final. Tikhonov's actions during the rest of the game were nothing to write home about; as always, he did not even pull the goalie, but then again, that was the unfortunate Soviet way back then.

Tarasov's teams lost to Czechoslovakia in the 1968 Olympics, then twice in the 1969 World Championships, couldn't beat them in the 1971 WHC either... luckily for him, CSSR could not dominate the other teams like the Soviets could, so despite that USSR won gold in each of those tournaments (by points or goal differential). But there is the evidence right there of Tarasov failing to get 'everything' out of his teams also.

 

[Yakushev72]

Aren't you one of them who are always complaining about the refereeing at the 1984 and 1987 Canada Cups? And heck, I agree totally that it wasn't fair & unbiased, although I do maintain that Team Canada played better in the 1984 semi-final.

Speaking of the 1984 tournament, the Soviets were missing the injured Vyacheslav Fetisov, a fairly important player, right? His absence maybe didn't show so much during round-robin, but they would have needed him in the semi-final game (e.g. the Soviet PP sucked throughout the game). Still, it was matchup that could have gone to either team.

In 1987, who did the Soviets have beyond the Green Unit and Bykov's line? On paper, it was one of the weakest teams they had had since the 1960s, especially after Svetlov, who was one of their best in the early part the tournament, was injured. Still, the superstar-filled Team Canada managed to beat them only by one goal with just 1:26 left of game 3 of the final. Tikhonov's actions during the rest of the game were nothing to write home about; as always, he did not even pull the goalie, but then again, that was the unfortunate Soviet way back then.

Tarasov's teams lost to Czechoslovakia in the 1968 Olympics, then twice in the 1969 World Championships, couldn't beat them in the 1971 WHC either... luckily for him, CSSR could not dominate the other teams like the Soviets could, so despite that USSR won gold in each of those tournaments (by points or goal differential). But there is the evidence right there of Tarasov failing to get 'everything' out of his teams also.

I am one of those who has constantly complained about the officiating at the 1984 and '87 Canada Cups. It was not a fair competition because the officiating was biased as a result of the manipulation of the Canadian owner of the Canada Cup tournament, Alan Eagleson. I stand by my assertions in that matter.

However, it is clear to me after having watched those games several times (they are abundantly present on youtube and other internet channels) that the Soviet team failed to match the fight, hunger and intensity that the Canadians brought to bear. The Canadians were banging the Soviets all over the ice with hard checking and refusing to lose a loose puck, and the Soviets did not seem to attempt to match that level of hunger and intensity. Contrast that with the Challenge Cup, where the Soviet team is throwing their collective bodies all over the ice, blasting Guy Lafleur in open ice, and refusing to be intimidated.

In 1984 and '87, if you look at the entire rosters, I believe that the Soviets had better overall talent, and they were certainly more synchronized from countless hours of practice, but they did not seem to be the same hungry team that they were in 1979. They may have had better talent and synchronization, but they weren't the better team. I don't wish to disparage Tikhonov, who was truly a great coach, but that failure was on him!

I wasn't around for the early days of Soviet hockey, but why should I believe alce, whose posts seem to be in complete opposition to what nearly all sports historians, sports journalists and the hockey players who played for both Tarasov and Tikhonov have emphatically stated regarding the coaching contrasts between Tarasov and Tikhonov? Why should I believe that alce has it right and Mikhailov, Petrov, Tretiak, Fetisov, Larionov, Makarov and Krutov are all completely wrong? Why should I believe that Arkady Chernyshev, and not Anatoli Tarasov, was the "real" Father of Soviet hockey, as alce has suggested? I find no persuasive reason why I should buy into all that!

 

[alce*]

I wasn't around for the early days of Soviet hockey, but why should I believe alce, whose posts seem to be in complete opposition to what nearly all sports historians, sports journalists and the hockey players who played for both Tarasov and Tikhonov have emphatically stated regarding the coaching contrasts between Tarasov and Tikhonov? Why should I believe that alce has it right and Mikhailov, Petrov, Tretiak, Fetisov, Larionov, Makarov and Krutov are all completely wrong? Why should I believe that Arkady Chernyshev, and not Anatoli Tarasov, was the "real" Father of Soviet hockey, as alce has suggested? I find no persuasive reason why I should buy into all that!

You know, I'm done with you. You clearly doesn't bother to read posts you're replaying to. I never say that Chernyshev is "real" father of Russian hockey, because only very naive people who believes in Fairy tales could think that there is one particular guy that's created it. I have in all my post especially mentioned that I think that Tarasov was very important person in beginning of Soviet hockey, but your keeps ignoring that. It's always sad to see when people instead of using proper arguments start discredit their opponents by using such lame phrases as "why should I believe you when that, that and that says opposite." Nobody ****ing wants you to believe in anything, you're not center of the world. We had discussion, discussion that you could end in any moment without being a jerk. Whatever...

Oh, and I'm totally impressed by your mentioning Fetisov and Larionov in comparison of Tikhonov and Tarasov.

 

[Yakushev72]

You know, I'm done with you. You clearly doesn't bother to read posts you're replaying to. I never say that Chernyshev is "real" father of Russian hockey, because only very naive people who believes in Fairy tales could think that there is one particular guy that's created it. I have in all my post especially mentioned that I think that Tarasov was very important person in beginning of Soviet hockey, but your keeps ignoring that. It's always sad to see when people instead of using proper arguments start discredit their opponents by using such lame phrases as "why should I believe you when that, that and that says opposite." Nobody ****ing wants you to believe in anything, you're not center of the world. We had discussion, discussion that you could end in any moment without being a jerk. Whatever...

Oh, and I'm totally impressed by your mentioning Fetisov and Larionov in comparising of Tikhonov and Tarasov.

You went beyond merely stating an opinion, and tried to rip me a new one so to speak. Often times, that tactic will generate a response. I'm done with it too, let's move on.

As a final note, Tarasov personally selected Fetisov to be a part of the CSKA youth program, and Fetisov considered Tarasov to be a friend and mentor throughout his life, which was well profiled in "Of Miracles and Men." Larionov has often spoken critically of Tikhonov, but I did not suggest that he compared him to Tarasov.

 

[alce*]

You went beyond merely stating an opinion, and tried to rip me a new one so to speak. Often times, that tactic will generate a response. I'm done with it too, let's move on.

You are so full of yourself. You still don't get it? Whatever.

 

[Car2014]

I went to see it yesterday and liked it a lot. I would have preferred more game sequences and fewer interviews, though.