Red Army

[Yakushev72]

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.

I'm not agreeing with the premise that the Soviet national team was hot-housed, because the teams always consisted of players from several teams, much like Canadian national teams of the same era, which were heavily represented by players from the Montreal Canadians, NY Islanders and Edmonton Oilers. The Soviet Champions league of that era played 48 regular season games all over a territory even more vast than the US and Canada, so "hot-housing" couldn't have been done.

But out of curiosity, how does hot-housing "hurt the development" of actual players? Does too much training, practice, conditioning and study put a player in too great a shape, make him too skilled, and too intelligent on the ice? Those characteristics seem more beneficial than detriment to me. Please explain.

 

[Theokritos]

I'm not agreeing with the premise that the Soviet national team was hot-housed, because the teams always consisted of players from several teams, much like Canadian national teams of the same era, which were heavily represented by players from the Montreal Canadians, NY Islanders and Edmonton Oilers. The Soviet Champions league of that era played 48 regular season games all over a territory even more vast than the US and Canada, so "hot-housing" couldn't have been done.

Seriously? Your claim is so obviously wrong, it's really heard to believe you mean what you say.

 

[Yakushev72]

Seriously? Your claim is so obviously wrong, it's really heard to believe you mean what you say.

What part is obviously wrong?

 

[Theokritos]

What part is obviously wrong?

The comparison with Team Canada as is the argument that hot-housing couldn't even have been done due to the "vast territory" the Soviet league covered. I mean you just provided the counter-argument yourself in post #99.

 

[Yakushev72]

The comparison with Team Canada as is the argument that hot-housing couldn't even have been done due to the "vast territory" the Soviet league covered. I mean you just provided the counter-argument yourself in post #99.

There were 4 teams in Moscow in that era - CSKA was not alone! Also, despite the fact that everybody wanted to get to Moscow, and Moscow-based coaches were certainly willing to assist talented prospects, there were frequently players on the team who played in Gorky, Leningrad, Chelyabinsk, Riga, and other cities. And even in Moscow, each team had its own unique training philosophy and methodology. They only trained together in breaks in the schedule that were made to prepare for international tournaments, which was the foundation for Soviet hockey.

 

[Macman]

I'm not agreeing with the premise that the Soviet national team was hot-housed, because the teams always consisted of players from several teams, much like Canadian national teams of the same era, which were heavily represented by players from the Montreal Canadians, NY Islanders and Edmonton Oilers. The Soviet Champions league of that era played 48 regular season games all over a territory even more vast than the US and Canada, so "hot-housing" couldn't have been done.

Fetisov himself says in the film that the best players in the country were placed on Red Army. That's the very definition of hot-housing. I'm sure he knows better than us.

 

[jcorb58]

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'.

Good point, im not suggesting the Soviets didn't have greatly talented players. Their skill level was world class. I never considered the skill level of their competition.

 

[NyQuil]

With respect to Tikhonov, in the film, Fetisov notes that Tikhonov inherited a competitive infrastructure of the team and states (paraphrasing):

"Would Tikhonov had done well without us? I don't know."

"Would we have done well without him? I think so."

I guess the question is whether a different coach would have gotten more or less out of his players with different methods.

 

[Fantomas]

Fetisov himself says in the film that the best players in the country were placed on Red Army. That's the very definition of hot-housing. I'm sure he knows better than us.

I would like to intervene here.

I agree that 'hot-housing' was a thing in the Soviet Union, particularly in the Tikhonov years. Where I disagree is concerning the notion that it was automatically a positive for the hockey program.

In fact, for players like Balderis this practice severely hurt his career because he was a free spirit who was unhappy to be used in that manner.

This was a homogenizing practice. It helped some players and hurt others. Why assume that it only had positive effects on the system? I think it deprived the system of its depth in favor of developing several tightly integrated lines.

 

[JackSlater]

I'm not agreeing with the premise that the Soviet national team was hot-housed, because the teams always consisted of players from several teams, much like Canadian national teams of the same era, which were heavily represented by players from the Montreal Canadians, NY Islanders and Edmonton Oilers. The Soviet Champions league of that era played 48 regular season games all over a territory even more vast than the US and Canada, so "hot-housing" couldn't have been done.

You're right that the whole team was not kept together year round, but clearly there was a situation in place where domestic teams were used to provide chemistry for the national team, to a level that Canada or USA (not sure about European teams) never achieved. For instance, in the 1987 Canada Cup USSR had its top six forwards all from the same team. Did Canada ever do that? No, clearly not. Did Canada ever even take a whole NHL line and play them together for a best on best tournament? Not that I am aware of.

Another difference is that when Canada picked players for chemistry, there was generally a tradeoff between picking the best players and those who had chemistry. I don't believe the Soviets had this issue to the same degree, since seemingly most of the best players already played together.

But out of curiosity, how does hot-housing "hurt the development" of actual players? Does too much training, practice, conditioning and study put a player in too great a shape, make him too skilled, and too intelligent on the ice? Those characteristics seem more beneficial than detriment to me. Please explain.

Zine already explained it for you. I know that you are a fan of such a system (your erroneous claims about this past year's USA World Championship team demonstrated as much) so you can go back and read what he wrote. Putting most of your best players on the same team limits their opportunity to test themselves against adequate opponents. Simple enough to understand. Additionally, it may relegate top level players (like a Bykov) to second line status, when they may better develop as leaders on another team. Fantomas has also indicated some reasons that it may not be positive.

I think it's a very effective way to make a single team as strong as possible, but I can't imagine it is the best option for the development of the actual players.

 

[Macman]

I would like to intervene here.

I agree that 'hot-housing' was a thing in the Soviet Union, particularly in the Tikhonov years. Where I disagree is concerning the notion that it was automatically a positive for the hockey program.

In fact, for players like Balderis this practice severely hurt his career because he was a free spirit who was unhappy to be used in that manner.

This was a homogenizing practice. It helped some players and hurt others. Why assume that it only had positive effects on the system? I think it deprived the system of its depth in favor of developing several tightly integrated lines.

There are exceptions to everything but it's pretty hard to argue that the negatives of such a system outweigh the positives, at least in terms of the product on the ice. The one thing Soviet teams never had to worry about was chemistry. It came with years of familiarity. They may have become complacent occasionally, but lack of chemistry was never an issue.

 

[Fantomas]

There are exceptions to everything but it's pretty hard to argue that the negatives of such a system outweigh the positives, at least in terms of the product on the ice. The one thing Soviet teams never had to worry about was chemistry. It came with years of familiarity. They may have become complacent occasionally, but lack of chemistry was never an issue.

You are right that Soviet teams never lacked chemistry, but they also lacked the free spiritedness a team sometimes needs to win close matches and series. This was always Canada's strength and this pushed them over the top in many battles.

You can look at the advantages, but there are always two sides to the coin.

 

[Fantomas]

I think it's a very effective way to make a single team as strong as possible, but I can't imagine it is the best option for the development of the actual players.

Very true. Personally I think Balderis was every bit as good as Krutov and maybe even Makarov. But he did not fit the hegemony. He was culturally different and did not like authority. A victim of the system, which also victimized itself.

 

[Theokritos]

There were 4 teams in Moscow in that era - CSKA was not alone! Also, despite the fact that everybody wanted to get to Moscow, and Moscow-based coaches were certainly willing to assist talented prospects, there were frequently players on the team who played in Gorky, Leningrad, Chelyabinsk, Riga, and other cities. And even in Moscow, each team had its own unique training philosophy and methodology. They only trained together in breaks in the schedule that were made to prepare for international tournaments, which was the foundation for Soviet hockey.

1/2 to 2/3 of the Soviet national team rosters used to consist of CSKA players. You won't find a Team Canada roster with the same concentration of players from one single team. Soviet hot-housing is a historic fact, I really don't see what's to debate here.

Benefits and drawbacks of that system on the other hand are up to debate. Zine and Fantomas both make valid points here. It's obvious Tarasov and Tikhonov believed the pros outweight the cons, but it's certainly not a given that they were right.

 

[Yakushev72]

You're right that the whole team was not kept together year round, but clearly there was a situation in place where domestic teams were used to provide chemistry for the national team, to a level that Canada or USA (not sure about European teams) never achieved. For instance, in the 1987 Canada Cup USSR had its top six forwards all from the same team. Did Canada ever do that? No, clearly not. Did Canada ever even take a whole NHL line and play them together for a best on best tournament? Not that I am aware of.

Another difference is that when Canada picked players for chemistry, there was generally a tradeoff between picking the best players and those who had chemistry. I don't believe the Soviets had this issue to the same degree, since seemingly most of the best players already played together.



Zine already explained it for you. I know that you are a fan of such a system (your erroneous claims about this past year's USA World Championship team demonstrated as much) so you can go back and read what he wrote. Putting most of your best players on the same team limits their opportunity to test themselves against adequate opponents. Simple enough to understand. Additionally, it may relegate top level players (like a Bykov) to second line status, when they may better develop as leaders on another team. Fantomas has also indicated some reasons that it may not be positive.

I think it's a very effective way to make a single team as strong as possible, but I can't imagine it is the best option for the development of the actual players.

The situation was completely different between NA and the USSR. The Soviet Championship league was not structured for the individual teams to create a profit, so there is no comparability between the styles. There was no TV contract, no expensive tickets to buy, no sponsoring merchandise. Media coverage of hockey was limited to a few lines in Pravda occasionally. The main purpose of hockey in the USSR was to win international competitions, and in the process, to entertain the fans of individual enterprises, labor unions, military agencies, and so on.

As for competitiveness, Tikhonov was guilty of abusing the system in favor of CSKA to feather his own nest in the mid- to late-80's. But it is also true that the coach of CSKA was not always the national team coach. Between Tarasov and Tikhonov, there was Arkadi Chenyshev, Vsevolod Bobrov, and Boris Kulagin, all of whom coached rivals of CSKA. The national team coach didn't "own" hockey to the degree that Tikhonov did late in his career.

 

[Theokritos]

Media coverage of hockey was limited to a few lines in Pravda occasionally.

That's not exactly true, once again.

 

[Yakushev72]

1/2 to 2/3 of the Soviet national team rosters used to consist of CSKA players. You won't find a Team Canada roster with the same concentration of players from one single team. Soviet hot-housing is a historic fact, I really don't see what's to debate here.

Benefits and drawbacks of that system on the other hand are up to debate. Zine and Fantomas both make valid points here. It's obvious Tarasov and Tikhonov believed the pros outweight the cons, but it's certainly not a given that they were right.

Its not that Tarasov or Tikhonov preferred hot house or no hot house - they accepted the only options that were available to them. Soviet hockey didn't begin until the late '40's, and Stalin's son Vasily actually created it, so you can imagine how much capitalist influence was a part of the Soviet system. Soviet citizens didn't have the kind of money needed to support youth hockey, much less expensive sky boxes with vintage champagne for the luxury seats. Neither an NHL or even a KHL was an option back then, so they worked with what they had. The military and trade unions supported most of the league teams, and capitalization was practically non-existent.

In light of that, its amazing what they accomplished. To get an idea of it, it was common thinking that was expressed by Dick Beddoes, featured columnist for the Toronto Globe and Mail, when he pledged before the 1972 series to eat his column in borscht if Canada failed to win all 8 games by a minimum margin of 10 goals. That was very common for what the Canadian public thought their heroes would encounter - lambs to the slaughter - but the Soviets arranged a more surprising outcome.

 

[Jussi]

With respect to Tikhonov, in the film, Fetisov notes that Tikhonov inherited a competitive infrastructure of the team and states (paraphrasing):

"Would Tikhonov had done well without us? I don't know."

"Would we have done well without him? I think so."

I guess the question is whether a different coach would have gotten more or less out of his players with different methods.

Vladimir Jursinov Sr. probably. He definitely cared more about his players, at least while he was coaching TPS in Finland.

 

[Jussi]

You are right that Soviet teams never lacked chemistry, but they also lacked the free spiritedness a team sometimes needs to win close matches and series. This was always Canada's strength and this pushed them over the top in many battles.

You can look at the advantages, but there are always two sides to the coin.

I think it may have helped to to get short term results (though short being about 5-7 years), but as the documentary and the players comments proved, it was mentally too taxing. One can speculate how things woulh have gone had Tikhonov been a better "players coach". Would he still have gotten the same results if the players had been given more time to spend with their families?

 

[Macman]

Its not that Tarasov or Tikhonov preferred hot house or no hot house - they accepted the only options that were available to them. Soviet hockey didn't begin until the late '40's, and Stalin's son Vasily actually created it, so you can imagine how much capitalist influence was a part of the Soviet system. Soviet citizens didn't have the kind of money needed to support youth hockey, much less expensive sky boxes with vintage champagne for the luxury seats. Neither an NHL or even a KHL was an option back then, so they worked with what they had. The military and trade unions supported most of the league teams, and capitalization was practically non-existent.

In light of that, its amazing what they accomplished. To get an idea of it, it was common thinking that was expressed by Dick Beddoes, featured columnist for the Toronto Globe and Mail, when he pledged before the 1972 series to eat his column in borscht if Canada failed to win all 8 games by a minimum margin of 10 goals. That was very common for what the Canadian public thought their heroes would encounter - lambs to the slaughter - but the Soviets arranged a more surprising outcome.

For perspective, Beddoes also once said Gretzky would have centred the fourth line of the Leafs in the 1940s. He said many stupid things.

 

[JackSlater]

The situation was completely different between NA and the USSR. The Soviet Championship league was not structured for the individual teams to create a profit, so there is no comparability between the styles. There was no TV contract, no expensive tickets to buy, no sponsoring merchandise. Media coverage of hockey was limited to a few lines in Pravda occasionally. The main purpose of hockey in the USSR was to win international competitions, and in the process, to entertain the fans of individual enterprises, labor unions, military agencies, and so on.

As for competitiveness, Tikhonov was guilty of abusing the system in favor of CSKA to feather his own nest in the mid- to late-80's. But it is also true that the coach of CSKA was not always the national team coach. Between Tarasov and Tikhonov, there was Arkadi Chenyshev, Vsevolod Bobrov, and Boris Kulagin, all of whom coached rivals of CSKA. The national team coach didn't "own" hockey to the degree that Tikhonov did late in his career.

Sure, I agree with all that. The two Soviet and Canadian systems were quite different.

 

[Theokritos]

Its not that Tarasov or Tikhonov preferred hot house or no hot house - they accepted the only options that were available to them.

Stacking CSKA beyond reason was not the only opion available to them. I don't know why it would be. It was the free choice of Tarasov and Tikhonov to do it.

Soviet hockey didn't begin until the late '40's, and Stalin's son Vasily actually created it

Vasily Stalin wasn't even in the country when Soviet hockey was created in 1946.

 

[Yakushev72]

That's not exactly true, once again.

You keep defining what is "not is exactly true," but you then tantalize us by refusing to reveal the "true" facts. For most people, one TV network was available, and much of the little time available was focused on football. Sure, Olympic coverage might feature highlights, and maybe occasionally a full game, but it was extremely sparse in comparison to Western media of the time. What is your analysis of available media venues in Soviet times, and how they covered hockey?

 

[Yakushev72]

Stacking CSKA beyond reason was not the only opion available to them. I don't know why it would be. It was the free choice of Tarasov and Tikhonov to do it.



Vasily Stalin wasn't even in the country when Soviet hockey was created in 1946.

If you want to debate this matter, you are going to have to observe the rules of debate. If you are going to make a declarative statement, you should say whether it is just an opinion, or whether you have facts to back it up. I wonder what you know about hockey in the early days in the USSR?

Did you know that hockey was almost exclusively a capitol city sport until the late 1950's? Did you know that there were no indoor hockey rinks in Russia until the late 1950's, so that even the Soviet national team trained outdoors until it was cold enough to flood outdoor rinks? Please delineate the "other options" that Tarasov could have "freely chosen" to build a hockey program from outside of Moscow Oblast that could have expanded the boundaries beyond CSKA, Dynamo and Spartak!

And in regard to Vasily Stalin, rather than calling me out, you should call out your own ESPN network. You can find an ESPN 2-hour documentary on YouTube called "30 on 30: Of Miracles and Men." This seemingly reputable documentary explains Vasily Stalin's role as General Manager of the Soviet national team, and how he coped with the loss of many of the Soviet national team's players in a plane crash in the Urals early on. It implies that Stalin was actually in the Soviet Union when he was carrying out his duties as General Manager.

 

[Theokritos]

You keep defining what is "not is exactly true," but you then tantalize us by refusing to reveal the "true" facts. For most people, one TV network was available, and much of the little time available was focused on football. Sure, Olympic coverage might feature highlights, and maybe occasionally a full game, but it was extremely sparse in comparison to Western media of the time. What is your analysis of available media venues in Soviet times, and how they covered hockey?

I'm not capable of giving a thorough analysis, but that's not even necessary: For starters, one of the most popular newspapers in the USSR was "Sovietsky Sport" and they covered hockey just like other sports. Every Sunday "Sovietsky Sport" carried a supplement called "Football-Hockey" dedicated to just that: Soccer and ice hockey. I can forward you some issues if you want.

Did you know that hockey was almost exclusively a capitol city sport until the late 1950's? Did you know that there were no indoor hockey rinks in Russia until the late 1950's, so that even the Soviet national team trained outdoors until it was cold enough to flood outdoor rinks?

I'm aware of both facts.

Please delineate the "other options" that Tarasov could have "freely chosen" to build a hockey program from outside of Moscow Oblast that could have expanded the boundaries beyond CSKA, Dynamo and Spartak!

Who or what exactly forced him to stack one team (his own) as much as he did? Not sure what the stacking has to do with building a hockey program.

And in regard to Vasily Stalin, rather than calling me out, you should call out your own ESPN network.

I'm not North American, so ESPN is not "my own network". I don't even have ESPN.

You can find an ESPN 2-hour documentary on YouTube called "30 on 30: Of Miracles and Men." This seemingly reputable documentary explains Vasily Stalin's role as General Manager of the Soviet national team, and how he coped with the loss of many of the Soviet national team's players in a plane crash in the Urals early on. It implies that Stalin was actually in the Soviet Union when he was carrying out his duties as General Manager.

That was in 1950. V.Stalin was in charge of the VVS MVO team, but I'm not aware of any Soviet national team program that early. What I can tell you is that he certainly did not start Soviet hockey since he was in Germany until Summer 1947 while the first Soviet league season started in November 1946. A little overview about some basic facts: here.