Red Army

[Theokritos]

I found that interesting as well. As much as Fetisov attempted to portray himself as a figure who liberated Russian hockey players to do what they wanted to do, he is still very much so, subservient to the authority figures in place today. I mean how can he be that guy and still say things like this, less then a year after this film came out?

http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on...ov-wants-ban-on-young-russians-playing-in-nhl

For the record, he asked for a league regulation, not for a federal law. But regardless, I think we tend to read something into 1989 Fetisov without really knowing whether our read is an accurate reflection of what he thought and wanted in 1989. I don't necessarily see a discrepancy between him back then and today.

Tikhonov was asked to be interviewed and be a part of the film and declined, I wouldn't hold that against him though. A very large portion of the documentary were a lot of his former players absolutely ripping him to shreds. Their loyalty to Tarasov was unquestionable.

The thing is, none of them ever had to play and train under Tarasov who had retired from coaching in 1974. A bit easy to be "loyal" to a highly successful and slightly eccentric elderly man whose role in your life or career is restricted to being an inspiration, an adviser, a mentor or a fatherly friend at best. If he's your boss who is demanding 100% and then some every single day, then we might look at a different scenario.

 

[Jussi]

Was that when he slapped a player in the lockerroom or on the bench? Heard about such a story, but was told it was Kamensky at the 87 Canada Cup.

Homutov's father was dying and he asked to see him one last time. Tikhonov declined. It was explained in the movie.

That is exactly what the film was about. It showed a different side of the dreaded Russian hockey teams that we as westerners, have never seen. It delved into a lot of stories involving these men that we never knew or heard. Tikhonov was asked to be interviewed and be a part of the film and declined, I wouldn't hold that against him though. A very large portion of the documentary were a lot of his former players absolutely ripping him to shreds. Their loyalty to Tarasov was unquestionable. The film was very, very slanted against Tikhonov, I wasn't alive during those times, so I couldn't possibly have a personal opinion on him. But I think he probably deserves some more credit then he was given in this film.

The film skips the summit series in 72 as well as the team's games against the Canadiens and Flyers which I felt were pretty big omissions. It jumps straight from way early years of Soviet hockey to the 1980 Olympics. Larionov and Makorov were both not interviewed, either. Either because they did not want to or because they were not given the opportunity I'm not sure. Much of the film is completely told from Fetisov's viewpoint, which is interesting because he didn't even want to participate in the film and didn't finally relent to be interviewed until the last day he was filming, AND only gave him 15 minutes of interview.

The Swedish documentary CCCP Hockey (which is on Youtube, narrated and subtitled in English), which came out in early -00 IIRC, has several comments from Tikhonov. He really came off as very inhumane towards his players. He didn't seem to think of them as human beings at all, especially if they lost. I believe both documentaries made it a point to emphasize that he was essentially handed the talented new player pool, he didn't develop them. He was a peculair personality in the sense that while he seemed to think of his players as "property of the state", at the Calgary Olympics after Finland had beaten the Soviets 2-1 in the final game of the tournament to secure our first ever medals in a major men's international tournament, he came to the Finnish locker room and congratulated all the coaches and players by shakign their hands and even hugging. Not sure if this viewable outside of Finland:
http://yle.fi/urheilu/video_leijoni...aki_etta_jotain_suurta_oli_tapahtunut/7647271 Our other goalie Jukka Tammi thought it might have been some kind of propaganda though.

 

[VMBM]

That is what I always thought. Always thought the Soviets best era was the mid 70s to mid 80s with the height being the late 70s.

Before Tikhonov took over (CSKA & national team) in the summer of 1977, the Soviets had just lost two world championships in a row. Also CSKA had lost the Soviet league championship in 1974 and 1976. But this never seems to be mentioned anywhere. To my mind it almost looks like Tikhonov saved the Soviet national team rather than somehow harmed it. A third loss in 1978 would have been almost like a deathblow to Soviet hockey, but they did win the championship in Prague - albeit narrowly.
And Tikhonov didn't just come from nowhere; he made a third-tier team, the original Dinamo Riga that did not have any big stars outside Balderis, a Soviet league team in a space of just a few years. He established four forward lines (first in Dinamo, then CSKA and ntl team) in Soviet hockey.

Yet I'm supposed to believe that Tikhonov was a ruthless despot who screwed up in Lake Placid and who was lucky to have such a great team/players under his control? And this is not to say that he didn't do wrong and unnecessary things, but could it be that his methods were also at least partly responsible for those great results? This is what his bitter ex-players seemingly fail to grasp (I would probably be bitter too, but...).

 

[Jussi]

Before Tikhonov took over (CSKA & national team) in the summer of 1977, the Soviets had just lost two world championships in a row. Also CSKA had lost the Soviet league championship in 1974 and 1976. But this never seems to be mentioned anywhere. To my mind it almost looks like Tikhonov saved the Soviet national team rather than somehow harmed it. A third loss in 1978 would have been almost like a deathblow to Soviet hockey, but they did win the championship in Prague - albeit narrowly.
And Tikhonov didn't just come from nowhere; he made a third-tier team, the original Dinamo Riga that did not have any big stars outside Balderis, a Soviet league team in a space of just a few years. He established four forward lines (first in Dinamo, then CSKA and ntl team) in Soviet hockey.

Yet I'm supposed to believe that Tikhonov was a ruthless despot who screwed up in Lake Placid and who was lucky to have such a great team/players under his control? And this is not to say that he didn't do wrong and unnecessary things, but could it be that his methods were also at least partly responsible for those great results? This is what his bitter ex-players seemingly fail to grasp (I would probably be bitter too, but...).

It's more a matter of that sometimes, the end doesn't justify the means. Let's not kid ourselves, even Finland's two World Championship teams could beat those 80's Soviet teams with the modern goaltending, defensemen mobillity and advanced tacticality/defensive systems. While not exposing the evolution of player quality that much, Tihonov's tactical capabilities would be exposed more.

 

[jeru]

just saw the movie. I never heard of this documentary before i joined this board, i'm really surprised about the quality! it was really fun and sad at the same time. Great job Mr Polasky! higly recommended. Off course, more of Hockey scenes would be appreciated - but thats complaining at a high level. 9 out of 10!

though, the Krutov moments have been really sad for me to watch..he was my childhood hero...

 

[Jackw5]

does anyone know where i can watch it in england

 

[Theokritos]

does anyone know where i can watch it in england

It was in theatres early this year. By now it's shown on television and available on Blu-Ray.

 

[Atas2000]

I loved the interviews. They were different than what you typically get with American media.

Fetisov was very funny, ironic. He was having some fun with the interviewer, but it wasn't mean-spirited. You could tell they knew each other for a while.

Segments with Krutov were very heartbreaking.

The most interesting thing about the documentary, for me, is what it revealed about Russian attitudes towards authority - specifically the attitudes of people, players, from the Fetisov generation. Fetisov, in particular, likes authority and collectivist values - just not the Tikhonov kind. He likes the Tarasov kind. He never did embrace American individualism, nor did his other contemporaries, I think.

Larionov is the quintessence of embracing american individualism. I don't blame him though like so many people. He is what he is.

 

[Atas2000]

It's more a matter of that sometimes, the end doesn't justify the means. Let's not kid ourselves, even Finland's two World Championship teams could beat those 80's Soviet teams with the modern goaltending, defensemen mobillity and advanced tacticality/defensive systems. While not exposing the evolution of player quality that much, Tihonov's tactical capabilities would be exposed more.

That is truly the most hilarious nonsense in a long,long time. Tikhnov's teamswre the best hockey has ever had till this day. Not because of Tikhonov alone. It was just the pinnacle of the decades of soviet hockey developing ultimately delivering the players, the systems and teh methods. It definitely wasn't Tikhonov unique genius, whil his coaching was a part of it in it's own right. But sorry, that 80's soviet teams would basically skate circles around those teams you mentioned. And their tacitcs were superior to medrn day tactics. They are just not anymore usable, because you need a cast of players to use them.

 

[Jussi]

does anyone know where i can watch it in england

It's on torrent sites.

 

[Jussi]

That is truly the most hilarious nonsense in a long,long time. Tikhnov's teamswre the best hockey has ever had till this day. Not because of Tikhonov alone. It was just the pinnacle of the decades of soviet hockey developing ultimately delivering the players, the systems and teh methods. It definitely wasn't Tikhonov unique genius, whil his coaching was a part of it in it's own right. But sorry, that 80's soviet teams would basically skate circles around those teams you mentioned. And their tacitcs were superior to medrn day tactics. They are just not anymore usable, because you need a cast of players to use them.

No they wouldn't, purely for the reasons I mentioned. The other countries caught up plus the advantage in goal would be fairly significant. Biggest advantage would be behind the bench, Curt Lindstöm already had Tihonov's number with Sweden and did so at Lillehammer Olympics with Finland. Plus Jukka Jalonen is one of the top premier tactical coaches in Finnish hockey history. His puck possession tactic drove Russian coaches and teams into utter confusion by going all FC Barcelona and keeping the intsrument all to themselves.

 

[Yakushev72]

No they wouldn't, purely for the reasons I mentioned. The other countries caught up plus the advantage in goal would be fairly significant. Biggest advantage would be behind the bench, Curt Lindstöm already had Tihonov's number with Sweden and di so at Lillehammer Olympics with Finland. Plus Jukka Jalonen is one of the top premier tactical coaches in Finnish hockey history. His puck possession tactic drove Russian coaches and teams into utter confusion by going all FC Barcelona and keeping the intsrument all to themselves.

Russia declined in hockey massively in quality after the Soviet era, so is it that today's teams are better or the level of competition got markedly worse since the Soviet's departed the scene? I think its the latter. The Soviets were the equals and peers of the Canadians, giving them far more competition than they wanted, while the Finns and Swedes and Americans of today usually forfeit in spirit before they ever leave the locker room for the game. No contest, really!

 

[Theokritos]

Let's not kid ourselves, even Finland's two World Championship teams could beat those 80's Soviet teams with the modern goaltending, defensemen mobillity and advanced tacticality/defensive systems.

No idea what you're aiming at with that statement. Teams from the 90s/00s would beat teams from the 80s if you sent them back with a time machine, is that what you're saying? If yes, then my next question is: so what?

 

[Jussi]

No idea what you're aiming at with that statement. Teams from the 90s/00s would beat teams from the 80s if you sent them back with a time machine, is that what you're saying? If yes, then my next question is: so what?

To highlight that Tikhonov wasn't all that as a coach.

 

[Jussi]

Russia declined in hockey massively in quality after the Soviet era, so is it that today's teams are better or the level of competition got markedly worse since the Soviet's departed the scene? I think its the latter. The Soviets were the equals and peers of the Canadians, giving them far more competition than they wanted, while the Finns and Swedes and Americans of today usually forfeit in spirit before they ever leave the locker room for the game. No contest, really!

I guess you missed the 2006 Olympics....

 

[patnyrnyg]

I guess you missed the 2006 Olympics....

Did the Soviet Union compete in 2006? Could have sworn they broke up in 1991.

 

[Jussi]

Did the Soviet Union compete in 2006? Could have sworn they broke up in 1991.

I was referring to the finalists in 2006. Finland beat Canada on the way to the final.

 

[patnyrnyg]

I was referring to the finalists in 2006. Finland beat Canada on the way to the final.

Yeah, so? Anything can happen in one game and most acknowledge 2006 was the weakest team Canada has sent to the Olympics since the NHL started participating. Even this past tournament, US didn't medal, but they were still the 2nd best team in the tournament. Luck of the draw or bad luck, they played Canada in the semis and not the finals. Didn't seem like they really cared about the Bronze medal game and frankly neither did I.

 

[Zine]

No they wouldn't, purely for the reasons I mentioned. The other countries caught up plus the advantage in goal would be fairly significant. Biggest advantage would be behind the bench, Curt Lindstöm already had Tihonov's number with Sweden and di so at Lillehammer Olympics with Finland. Plus Jukka Jalonen is one of the top premier tactical coaches in Finnish hockey history. His puck possession tactic drove Russian coaches and teams into utter confusion by going all FC Barcelona and keeping the intsrument all to themselves.

Tikhonov didn't coach Russia in Lillehammer.

 

[Zine]

It's more a matter of that sometimes, the end doesn't justify the means. Let's not kid ourselves, even Finland's two World Championship teams could beat those 80's Soviet teams with the modern goaltending, defensemen mobillity and advanced tacticality/defensive systems. While not exposing the evolution of player quality that much, Tihonov's tactical capabilities would be exposed more.

You're seriously playing the 'time machine game'?

With modern goaltending technique, defensemen mobility and defensive systems, Finland's last 2 WC teams could beat any team from the 1980's, not just Tikhonov's Soviets.

Every single coach from previous eras would look out of place if we dropped them into today's game. This, however, doesn't make the coaches of yesteryear 'not all that'.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Russia declined in hockey massively in quality after the Soviet era, so is it that today's teams are better or the level of competition got markedly worse since the Soviet's departed the scene? I think its the latter. The Soviets were the equals and peers of the Canadians, giving them far more competition than they wanted, while the Finns and Swedes and Americans of today usually forfeit in spirit before they ever leave the locker room for the game. No contest, really!

Or, maybe because the Soviet Union collapsed, communism went out the door, the government could no longer force players to play for the Army, they could not keep all the best players on the same team training 11 months a year. Players actually had a few rights with what to do with their careers, realized they could make a lot of money in the NHL and provide a better life and lifestyle for the families. So now, the Russian national team is just like every other National team where they can hold a short training camp, select players, and have to rely on the talents of their players.

 

[Jussi]

Tikhonov didn't coach Russia in Lillehammer.

Yes he did.



At the 5:37 mark for starters, if that's not Tikhonov, then who the hell is it?

 

[Yakushev72]

Or, maybe because the Soviet Union collapsed, communism went out the door, the government could no longer force players to play for the Army, they could not keep all the best players on the same team training 11 months a year. Players actually had a few rights with what to do with their careers, realized they could make a lot of money in the NHL and provide a better life and lifestyle for the families. So now, the Russian national team is just like every other National team where they can hold a short training camp, select players, and have to rely on the talents of their players.

Thanks for the history lesson, complete with all the default answers that North American school children are instructed to recite. There was no forced participation or forced transfer to CSKA or Dynamo, although being selected to play for CSKA had the effect of satisfying the mandatory military service that all Soviet citizens were obliged to perform, which was a huge incentive to play for CSKA.

Whether as slaves with razor blades held to the throats of their wives and children, as you depict, or voluntarily, the Soviet national team offered a level of competition to Canada on the international level that has not been matched since. When the Challenge Cup and Canada Cups were played in the 70's and 80's, there was a real sense of suspense and excitement, and the games were wildly entertaining. Canada, without an opponent of the stature of the Soviets, has dominated world hockey with such ease in recent years that they could publish the final outcome a month before the World Cup and they would be correct. I fully believe that creating teams like North America U23 is only designed to modify or soften the domination.

You are right that Russian hockey disintegrated after the Soviet era. Hockey was only superficially developed during the Soviet era, but what little existed quickly disintegrated in the post-Soviet economic depression. Significant hockey infrastructure only exists in a few Russian cities and towns, and despite recent expansion and development, Russia is no better than 5th when it comes to Olympic-level competition. A 5th place finish is probably where Russia will finish if it plays in the World Cup.

 

[Oak]

Great movie. They sure did play some beautiful hockey.

 

[Yakushev72]

I was referring to the finalists in 2006. Finland beat Canada on the way to the final.

Who didn't? In addition to losing to Finland, Canada lost to the Swiss and to Russia. An absolutely terrible Russian team shut Canada out 2-0 in the QF. But given the results before 2006 and after, that seems like an anomaly.