Red Army

[Jussi]

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.

We beat them in 98 as well. And we also beat you in -02, -06 and -14.

 

[NyQuil]

We beat them in 98 as well.

LOL, in the bronze medal game.

 

[Jussi]

LOL, in the bronze medal game.

Even more important since it meant we got a medal and Sweden and Canada didn't.

 

[Yakushev72]

We beat them in 98 as well. And we also beat you in -02, -06 and -14.

Who didn't? But now its no contest between Finland and Canada, and even Russia seems a bit closer to success against the Scandinavians.

 

[patnyrnyg]

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.

So, like I said, once most of all the best players from the country were no longer put on the same team to train together 11 months of the year, Russian hockey disintegrated?

I have always felt it wasn't just the players that made those Soviet teams so great, but the system under which they played and lived was just as much a part of their success. If they were still playing under it today, I have no doubt they along with Canada would be head and shoulders above the rest when it comes to the International Tourneys. However, I also believe if Canada had the same system, they would have dominated the era.

96 World Cup, 98 Olympics and since they have basically been an all-star team just like the US and Canada have always had.

 

[Zine]

So, like I said, once most of all the best players from the country were no longer put on the same team to train together 11 months of the year, Russian hockey disintegrated?

I have always felt it wasn't just the players that made those Soviet teams so great, but the system under which they played and lived was just as much a part of their success. If they were still playing under it today, I have no doubt they along with Canada would be head and shoulders above the rest when it comes to the International Tourneys. However, I also believe if Canada had the same system, they would have dominated the era.

96 World Cup, 98 Olympics and since they have basically been an all-star team just like the US and Canada have always had.

Incorrect.

Fact: USSR's junior teams were just as successful as the senior teams, yet the junior teams DID NOT practice together often and players were selected from teams from all over the country. In light of this, take note that the junior team's decline still mirrored that of the senior team when the USSR collapsed.

The USSR's fall from dominance in international play goes faaaar beyond the 'players no longer could train together' argument.

 

[Macman]

Incorrect.

Fact: USSR's junior teams were just as successful as the senior teams, yet the junior teams DID NOT practice together often and players were selected from teams from all over the country. In light of this, take note that the junior team's decline still mirrored that of the senior team when the USSR collapsed.

The USSR's fall from dominance in international play goes faaaar beyond the 'players no longer could train together' argument.

Sorry but the decline in Soviet junior success began well before the collapse of the country. It coincided with the launch of the Canadian national junior program in 1982. Before that the Soviets were unbeatable. After that and until the demise of the Soviet Union in '91, the two countries were pretty much on an equal footing even though Canada actually won one more junior gold during that stretch. Meanwhile the Soviet seniors, with Red Army hot-housing most of the best talent in the country, kept winning worlds and Olympic golds.

Hot-housing works. It's why the Soviets did it and why the Americans do it today at U18 level. The Yanks are almost unbeatable in the U18s but strangely enough their success is nowhere near as good at the world juniors. Why is that I wonder?

Hot-housing was a massive advantage for the Soviets (among other advantages) but you'll never acknowledge it because it pokes holes in Soviet hockey mythology. Now Russian fans are like everybody else. They complain during a tournament with little preparation time about poor coaching or poor team selection or poor chemistry. It sucks, doesn't it?

 

[Theokritos]

Why does this have to turn into yet another USSR vs Canada battle? And why am I not surprised it does?

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.

The second part of the statement ("although being selected etc") is true, but the first part is not entirely correct. CSKA and Dinamo didn't have to hold razor blades to the throates of wives and children, they could simply acquire a player via the military draft whether he wanted it or not. There are a few documented cases where players escaped these involuntary transfers, but they had to go to great lenghts (like literally hiding from officers) to avoid the "recruitment". CSKA (and Dinamo too to a degree) ususally got the players they wanted, even those who didn't want to play for them. The incentives did certainly play a major role too, but they were not the only factor at work, CSKA and Dinamo could and would use their connections to the Army and the KGB to enforce the recruitment of players without their consent.

Other than that I don't really disagree with most of what you said.

 

[Theokritos]

Hot-housing works. It's why the Soviets did it and why the Americans do it today at U18 level. The Yanks are almost unbeatable in the U18s but strangely enough their success is nowhere near as good at the world juniors. Why is that I wonder?

Hot-housing was a massive advantage for the Soviets (among other advantages) but you'll never acknowledge it because it pokes holes in Soviet hockey mythology

I agree that "hot-housing" was a major factor working in favour of the Soviets at the senior level. But from what I know there was little hot-housing at the junior level. Check out the Soviet WJC rosters, there were players from plenty of teams from all over the country. Then again, I don't know how the American "hot-housing" of their junior players work and how far it goes.

 

[Macman]

I agree that "hot-housing" was a major factor working in favour of the Soviets at the senior level. But from what I know there was little hot-housing at the junior level. Check out the Soviet WJC rosters, there were players from plenty of teams from all over the country. Then again, I don't know how the American "hot-housing" of their junior players work and how far it goes.

The U.S. has a two-year U18 program based in Ann Arbor that culminates in the U18 worlds. There's no similar program beyond that.

 

[Theokritos]

The U.S. has a two-year U18 program based in Ann Arbor that culminates in the U18 worlds. There's no similar program beyond that.

I read that's a "full-time development program". The Soviets did not have something similar on the junior level to my knowledge. Their junior national teams were composed of players from a variety of teams (no CSKA concentration as opposed to the senior national team) who played a regular domestic schedule with their junior clubs. They had occasional training camps and exhibitions/tournaments in preparation for the Wold Juniors, but that's not different than what other countries had.

 

[jcorb58]

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.

1000% AGREED, I could only dream how good of a team USA and Canada could ice if their best could play, practice and train together 11 months out of the year. I wish we could have both " best of "teams compete in the NHL year round and then play the Olympics and World Championship tournaments. The Red Army teams reached higher levels because of their unique circumstance.

 

[jcorb58]

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.

It doesnt really matter how the best sovet players became a team. Its a fact other countries could not emulate how the soviets put together their national team. Canada does not have a forced military obligation to offer our citizens a better lifestyle. Now that your on the same playing field as us in selecting a national team your dominance is no longer what it used to be.

 

[Zine]

Sorry but the decline in Soviet junior success began well before the collapse of the country. It coincided with the launch of the Canadian national junior program in 1982. Before that the Soviets were unbeatable. After that and until the demise of the Soviet Union in '91, the two countries were pretty much on an equal footing even though Canada actually won one more junior gold during that stretch. Meanwhile the Soviet seniors, with Red Army hot-housing most of the best talent in the country, kept winning worlds and Olympic golds.

Hot-housing works. It's why the Soviets did it and why the Americans do it today at U18 level. The Yanks are almost unbeatable in the U18s but strangely enough their success is nowhere near as good at the world juniors. Why is that I wonder?

Hot-housing was a massive advantage for the Soviets (among other advantages) but you'll never acknowledge it because it pokes holes in Soviet hockey mythology. Now Russian fans are like everybody else. They complain during a tournament with little preparation time about poor coaching or poor team selection or poor chemistry. It sucks, doesn't it?

You're totally missing the point.

Up to the fall of the USSR, the junior teams were every bit as good as Canada. 1a and 1a....just like the senior teams. However the junior program DID NOT 'hot-house' players, yet they dominated the competition at the highest level of junior play. Still, the downfall of junior teams mirrored that of the senior team once the USSR collapses. This clearly shows that the success of the Soviet program extended far beyond the ability to hothouse players.

 

[jcorb58]

You're totally missing the point.

Up to the fall of the USSR, the junior teams were every bit as good as Canada. 1a and 1a....just like the senior teams. However the junior program DID NOT 'hot-house' players, yet they dominated the competition at the highest level of junior play. Still, the downfall of junior teams mirrored that of the senior team once the USSR collapses. This clearly shows that the success of the Soviet program extended far beyond the ability to hothouse players.

Agreed, but what would the results be if one country "hot-housed" their now 20 year olds and the other didn't ? In 5 years i would bet the hot-housed team would be superior.

 

[Jussi]

...

You going to answer this question?: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=107113363&postcount=72

 

[Zine]

Agreed, but what would the results be if one country "hot-housed" their now 20 year olds and the other didn't ? In 5 years i would bet the hot-housed team would be superior.

Not exactly. It depends on the circumstances. For example, what's the quality of competition the 'hot-housed' team regularly faces?

US' NTDP system works because they regularly face competition better than themselves. The NTDP plays together year-round, faces adversity, grows together, overcome challenges when they get crushed by NCAA teams, they learn from their mistakes, etc. etc. This makes them a well-oiled and well-rounded machine come U18 tournament time.

On the other hand, CSKA (who had many NT players in the 80s) didn't have those same advantages. Yes, they played together year-round, but they never regularly faced competition equal to themselves leading up to the WC, CC, olympics. The entire season was an unchallenged snooze-fest. Therefore,, they didn't have the luxury of overcoming adversity, growing together as a team when they lost, learning from mistakes, etc. etc.
In many ways, the hot-housing methods of the Soviets were just as detrimental as advantageous.

Again, things aren't as simple as 'the Soviets were good because they hot-housed players'.

 

[Zine]

You going to answer this question?: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=107113363&postcount=72

Yeah, he coached. My mistake.

You gonna answer this?

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=107103545&postcount=70

 

[Jussi]

Yeah, he coached. My mistake.

You gonna answer this?

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=107103545&postcount=70

Was it not obvious already?

 

[Zine]

Was it not obvious already?

It was obvious that you were BSing and could not give an answer. But I was just verifying.

All is good.

 

[Macman]

You're totally missing the point.

Up to the fall of the USSR, the junior teams were every bit as good as Canada. 1a and 1a....just like the senior teams. However the junior program DID NOT 'hot-house' players, yet they dominated the competition at the highest level of junior play. Still, the downfall of junior teams mirrored that of the senior team once the USSR collapses. This clearly shows that the success of the Soviet program extended far beyond the ability to hothouse players.

I'm not missing the point, and I never said Soviet juniors hot-housed. I was responding to your total dismissal of patnyrnyg's claim that the Soviet system played a major part in the success of its hockey teams. You called him incorrect. That's ludicrous.

 

[Zine]

I'm not missing the point, and I never said Soviet juniors hot-housed. I was responding to your total dismissal of patnyrnyg's claim that the Soviet system played a major part in the success of its hockey teams. You called him incorrect. That's ludicrous.

He's incorrect in terms of degree of influence he claims the 'system' had on success.

Of course the system had its advantages, and helped in success to some degree. However, it wasn't a major part in the success. If it were, you'd have a major discrepancy in performance between the senior NT and junior NT (who didn't have the supposed 'advantages'). But there was no discrepancy. At the end of the day it was the talent of the players that was the major factor in success.

 

[JackSlater]

Not exactly. It depends on the circumstances. For example, what's the quality of competition the 'hot-housed' team regularly faces?

US' NTDP system works because they regularly face competition better than themselves. The NTDP plays together year-round, faces adversity, grows together, overcome challenges when they get crushed by NCAA teams, they learn from their mistakes, etc. etc. This makes them a well-oiled and well-rounded machine come U18 tournament time.

On the other hand, CSKA (who had many NT players in the 80s) didn't have those same advantages. Yes, they played together year-round, but they never regularly faced competition equal to themselves leading up to the WC, CC, olympics. The entire season was an unchallenged snooze-fest. Therefore,, they didn't have the luxury of overcoming adversity, growing together as a team when they lost, learning from mistakes, etc. etc.
In many ways, the hot-housing methods of the Soviets were just as detrimental as advantageous.

Again, things aren't as simple as 'the Soviets were good because they hot-housed players'.

That's a pretty good description, and it's why I generally hate the idea of "hot housing". It might make for a somewhat better team, but it probably hurts the development of the actual players unless the option for even stronger teams is available.

 

[Yakushev72]

Why does this have to turn into yet another USSR vs Canada battle? And why am I not surprised it does?



The second part of the statement ("although being selected etc") is true, but the first part is not entirely correct. CSKA and Dinamo didn't have to hold razor blades to the throates of wives and children, they could simply acquire a player via the military draft whether he wanted it or not. There are a few documented cases where players escaped these involuntary transfers, but they had to go to great lenghts (like literally hiding from officers) to avoid the "recruitment". CSKA (and Dinamo too to a degree) ususally got the players they wanted, even those who didn't want to play for them. The incentives did certainly play a major role too, but they were not the only factor at work, CSKA and Dinamo could and would use their connections to the Army and the KGB to enforce the recruitment of players without their consent.

Other than that I don't really disagree with most of what you said.

I may have been ineffective in trying to offer a rebuttal to the kinds of default prison/gulag arguments that are so often made about Soviet hockey. The fact is that while the best paid Soviet players made no more than the equivalent of $5,000 US, that was significantly more income than the average Soviet citizen earned. But more importantly, far beyond actual income, being an honored master of sport offered you access to housing, food, cars and other amenities of life that the average Soviet citizen could only dream of!

In addition, unlike the US and Canada at the time, where you could have access to the same quality of housing, food, consumer goods and other amenities wherever you lived, in the Soviet Union there was a huge difference between living in Moscow and anywhere else. Other cities were completely barren in quality of life in comparison to Moscow, so guys like Sergei Makarov and Sergei Starikov were not unhappy at all when they were "recruited" by CSKA, or any of the other Moscow teams. Instead, they marveled at their good luck!

 

[Theokritos]

I may have been ineffective in trying to offer a rebuttal to the kinds of default prison/gulag arguments that are so often made about Soviet hockey. The fact is that while the best paid Soviet players made no more than the equivalent of $5,000 US, that was significantly more income than the average Soviet citizen earned. But more importantly, far beyond actual income, being an honored master of sport offered you access to housing, food, cars and other amenities of life that the average Soviet citizen could only dream of!

In addition, unlike the US and Canada at the time, where you could have access to the same quality of housing, food, consumer goods and other amenities wherever you lived, in the Soviet Union there was a huge difference between living in Moscow and anywhere else. Other cities were completely barren in quality of life in comparison to Moscow, so guys like Sergei Makarov and Sergei Starikov were not unhappy at all when they were "recruited" by CSKA, or any of the other Moscow teams. Instead, they marveled at their good luck!

Your point is well taken as far as I'm concerned, but it's important not to overlook that there are still examples of players (some outside of Moscow, some on other Moscow clubs such as Spartak etc) who did not want to play for CSKA/Dinamo and who could and would be subject to involuntary transfers to those teams. I do agree that voluntary moves were also common and probably even more common, considering the incentives that existed.