Red Army

[Yakushev72]

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.



I'm aware of both facts.



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.



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



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.

I'll grant you that Sovetsky Sport was a publication going all the way back to the 1920's, although it was a lot different than what sports fans would call a sports paper today. Its circulation was largely limited to the big cities like Moscow, Leningrad and Kiev back then, although later on they had active circulation outside of the country. But my media comment was only to draw contrast between the Soviets and the West, and its an insignificant aspect of my argument.

Whether you can say that Vasily Stalin was actually in the country on the mythical date when hockey was introduced to the USSR, its ridiculous to minimize the role that Stalin had in the development of hockey, given his last name, and the fact that his father happened to hold a position that was not at all insignificant in making decisions and directing resources for the country. His importance is only matched by Tarasov himself.

Regarding stacking, I claim that there was too small a resource (quality players) to stack in Tarasov's era. You seem to imply that there were better options for winning more Olympic Gold and World Championships than the methods used, but you have failed to identify them and describe why they would have worked better. I think that anyone who is reading this debate is waiting for you to drop the coup d' grace!

 

[VMBM]

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.

When did two-thirds of the national team consist of CSKA players? I'm curious. During Tarasov's (& Chernyshev's) time? Even in the mid-/late-1980s, when CSKA was at its most dominating, it seemed to be clearly closer to 1/2.

 

[Theokritos]

Whether you can say that Vasily Stalin was actually in the country on the mythical date when hockey was introduced to the USSR, its ridiculous to minimize the role that Stalin had in the development of hockey

I didn't minimize his role other than correctly pointing out he did not create Soviet hockey.

Regarding stacking, I claim that there was too small a resource (quality players) to stack in Tarasov's era.

If you put half of the quality players of one country on the same team it's stacking, regardless of how small the talent pool of that country is, right? Also, "Tarasov's era" lasted from the 1940s well into the 1970s, so that's quite a broad claim you make there.

You seem to imply that there were better options for winning more Olympic Gold and World Championships than the methods used, but you have failed to identify them and describe why they would have worked better. I think that anyone who is reading this debate is waiting for you to drop the coup d' grace!

Now I'm confused because so far we've been talking about developing a hockey program and running a league, not about winning Olympic medals. Now I'm well aware that the latter purpose was an important objective for the Soviets, but that actually confirms my claim: the Soviets did hot-housing (mostly at CSKA) in order to gain an advantage in international competition.

When did two-thirds of the national team consist of CSKA players? I'm curious. During Tarasov's (& Chernyshev's) time? Even in the mid-/late-1980s, when CSKA was at its most dominating, it seemed to be clearly closer to 1/2.

Up to 2/3 would be under Tikhonov. Earlier on more like 1/2 indeed. EDIT: I realize now that I misread your post. Yes, 2/3 is exaggerated. 50-60% is what I should have written.

 

[Yakushev72]

I didn't minimize his role other than correctly pointing out he did not create Soviet hockey.



If you put half of the quality players of one country on the same team it's stacking, regardless of how small the talent pool of that country is, right? Also, "Tarasov's era" lasted from the 1940s well into the 1970s, so that's quite a broad claim you make there.



Now I'm confused because so far we've been talking about developing a hockey program and running a league, not about winning Olympic medals. Now I'm well aware that the latter purpose was an important objective for the Soviets, but that actually confirms my claim: the Soviets did hot-housing (mostly at CSKA) in order to gain an advantage in international competition.



Up to 2/3 would be under Tikhonov. Earlier on more like 1/2 indeed.

If you define hot-housing as comparable to what the USA does in its NTDP, where the national team competes in a league stand-alone, then no, the Soviets did not use hot-housing. If you define it as having a preponderance of players from one club team on the national team, then it did, but Canada came close, for example, in the 1984 Canada Cup, when Edmonton's Glen Sather was the coach and Oiler players were replete throughout the roster.

The purpose of creating hockey in the USSR in the 1940's was to introduce the game to the public, in general, but more specifically to prepare for competition in a winter sport that Soviet sports authorities thought might bring success for the Soviet nation. As I keep saying, and you keep avoiding, Josef Stalin did not exactly encourage capitalist entrepreneurism in the 1940's, so it was unlikely that a band of wealthy American capitalists could come into the USSR and create a league seeking balanced competition for the sole purpose of making huge profits for the capitalists. In reality, all of hockey was financed by the Government, even if through different labels, and the ONLY option for guys like Tarasov was to operate within the framework of winning medals for the motherland. If there were other options, again, please lay them out.

 

[NyQuil]

If you define it as having a preponderance of players from one club team on the national team, then it did, but Canada came close, for example, in the 1984 Canada Cup, when Edmonton's Glen Sather was the coach and Oiler players were replete throughout the roster.

This is a ridiculous comparison.

Sather didn't have the power to add the best players to the Oilers with the national team as the carrot.

He just assembled players from the two top teams at the time, the other being the Islanders.

Not to mention, as was said in the documentary (have you seen it yet?), the CKSA players' wives complained about seeing their husbands 32 days in a calendar year. 333 days of a majority of the national team's player together per year.

There is nothing like that in North America, no matter how many dubious parallels you try to create.

Even in this particular case, CKSA had more players on the Soviet team than Edmonton did on the Canadian team.

The difference being that there was nothing systematic that ensured that Canada's national team would always consist of mostly the same team's players, year after year after year.

 

[Theokritos]

If you define hot-housing as comparable to what the USA does in its NTDP, where the national team competes in a league stand-alone, then no, the Soviets did not use hot-housing.

No one claims they did that anyway.

If you define it as having a preponderance of players from one club team on the national team, then it did, but Canada came close, for example, in the 1984 Canada Cup, when Edmonton's Glen Sather was the coach and Oiler players were replete throughout the roster.

Okay, let's look into the 1984 Canada Cup.

Canadian roster:
Grant Fuhr (Oilers), Pete Peeters (Bruins), Réjean Lemelin (Flyers); Paul Coffey (Oilers), Kevin Lowe (Oilers), Charlie Huddy (Oilers), Randy Gregg (Oilers), Ray Bourque (Bruins), Larry Robinson (Canadiens), Doug Wilson (Black Hawks), Bob Bourne (Islanders); Wayne Gretzky (Oilers), Mark Messier (Oilers), Glenn Anderson (Oilers), Mike Bossy (Islanders), John Tonelli (Islanders), Brent Sutter (Islanders), Michel Goulet (Nordiques), Peter Å ťastný (Nordiques), Rick Middleton (Bruins), Mike Gartner (Capitals), Brian Bellows (North Stars), Steve Yzerman (Red Wings).

23 players overall, 8 of them from the Oilers. That's 34.8 %.

Soviet roster:
Tyzhnykh (CSKA), Myshkin (Dinamo); Kasatonov (CSKA), Starikov (CSKA), Zubkov (CSKA), Stelnov (CSKA), Gusarov (CSKA), Pervukhin (Dinamo), Bilyaletdinov (Dinamo); Krutov (CSKA), Makarov (CSKA), Larionov (CSKA), M.Vasilyev (CSKA), I.Gimayev (CSKA), Svetlov (Dinamo), Semyonov (Dinamo), Yashin (Dinamo), Varnakov (Gorky), Skvortsov (Gorky), Kovin (Gorky), Shepelev (Spartak).

21 players overall, 11 of them from CSKA. That's 52.4 % (certainly not a high number in other to other Soviet rosters of the Tikhonov era BTW).

The purpose of creating hockey in the USSR in the 1940's was to introduce the game to the public, in general, but more specifically to prepare for competition in a winter sport that Soviet sports authorities thought might bring success for the Soviet nation. As I keep saying, and you keep avoiding, Josef Stalin did not exactly encourage capitalist entrepreneurism in the 1940's, so it was unlikely that a band of wealthy American capitalists could come into the USSR and create a league seeking balanced competition for the sole purpose of making huge profits for the capitalists.

I'm not avoiding this. As pointed out above it actually confirms what I have claimed. To repeat what I literally said in my last post: the Soviets did hot-housing (mostly at CSKA) in order to gain an advantage in international competition.

In reality, all of hockey was financed by the Government, even if through different labels, and the ONLY option for guys like Tarasov was to operate within the framework of winning medals for the motherland. If there were other options, again, please lay them out.

The other option was to allow a more balanced and more competitive league by not stacking his team as much as he did.

 

[FrozenJagrt]

Just watched this. Great flick, pretty informative. Being born in 89, my memories of hockey always included Russians in the NHL. It wasn't until I was about twelve years old that I started looking into things, and only then did I learn about the Soviet unit, with their dominance on the ice and struggles off of it. I will highly recommend this for anyone that didn't live through the cold war.

One thing I wish they investigated further is the fallout after the Lake Placid game. Every western hockey fan knows the story of that American team. What I still know very little about is the aftermath in Russia. The organization went through a bit of a culling, so I'd be interested to hear stories of the personnel that were removed, what sort of backlash they must have faced. The game had severe political ramifications, as the Red Army team was viewed in the USSR to be a microcosm of what made the Soviet system the "right" way of life. If anyone knows more, I'd love to hear about it.

 

[Jussi]

The other option was to allow a more balanced and more competitive league by not stacking his team as much as he did.

This certainly worked for Finland and Sweden during the late 80's and 90's when those leagues became stronger and stronger and it showed in player development.

 

[Zine]

Just watched this. Great flick, pretty informative. Being born in 89, my memories of hockey always included Russians in the NHL. It wasn't until I was about twelve years old that I started looking into things, and only then did I learn about the Soviet unit, with their dominance on the ice and struggles off of it. I will highly recommend this for anyone that didn't live through the cold war.

One thing I wish they investigated further is the fallout after the Lake Placid game. Every western hockey fan knows the story of that American team. What I still know very little about is the aftermath in Russia. The organization went through a bit of a culling, so I'd be interested to hear stories of the personnel that were removed, what sort of backlash they must have faced. The game had severe political ramifications, as the Red Army team was viewed in the USSR to be a microcosm of what made the Soviet system the "right" way of life. If anyone knows more, I'd love to hear about it.

There wasn't much backlash, relatively speaking. Tikhonov took the brunt of the blame, but his job was never in danger. He was already entrenched as NT coach with the political clout to survive the loss. Basically, sentiment was 'situations like this are bound to happen, but don't make a habit of it'. And he didn't.

As for changes? I think Tikhonov realized he had relied upon the aging vets for too long (Kharlamov, Petrov, Mikhailov, etc.) and they were soon replaced.

Ironically, what we consider the Soviet peak (late 70/ealy 80s) occurred during a time of a huge generation turnover. It highlights the depth the program had at that period.

 

[Macman]

If you define hot-housing as comparable to what the USA does in its NTDP, where the national team competes in a league stand-alone, then no, the Soviets did not use hot-housing. If you define it as having a preponderance of players from one club team on the national team, then it did, but Canada came close, for example, in the 1984 Canada Cup, when Edmonton's Glen Sather was the coach and Oiler players were replete throughout the roster.

Any rational definition of hot-housing involves putting players together for much longer than three weeks every four years. You're really trying to argue that black is white with this one.

 

[Yakushev72]

No one claims they did that anyway.



Okay, let's look into the 1984 Canada Cup.

Canadian roster:
Grant Fuhr (Oilers), Pete Peeters (Bruins), Réjean Lemelin (Flyers); Paul Coffey (Oilers), Kevin Lowe (Oilers), Charlie Huddy (Oilers), Randy Gregg (Oilers), Ray Bourque (Bruins), Larry Robinson (Canadiens), Doug Wilson (Black Hawks), Bob Bourne (Islanders); Wayne Gretzky (Oilers), Mark Messier (Oilers), Glenn Anderson (Oilers), Mike Bossy (Islanders), John Tonelli (Islanders), Brent Sutter (Islanders), Michel Goulet (Nordiques), Peter Å ťastný (Nordiques), Rick Middleton (Bruins), Mike Gartner (Capitals), Brian Bellows (North Stars), Steve Yzerman (Red Wings).

23 players overall, 8 of them from the Oilers. That's 34.8 %.

Soviet roster:
Tyzhnykh (CSKA), Myshkin (Dinamo); Kasatonov (CSKA), Starikov (CSKA), Zubkov (CSKA), Stelnov (CSKA), Gusarov (CSKA), Pervukhin (Dinamo), Bilyaletdinov (Dinamo); Krutov (CSKA), Makarov (CSKA), Larionov (CSKA), M.Vasilyev (CSKA), I.Gimayev (CSKA), Svetlov (Dinamo), Semyonov (Dinamo), Yashin (Dinamo), Varnakov (Gorky), Skvortsov (Gorky), Kovin (Gorky), Shepelev (Spartak).

21 players overall, 11 of them from CSKA. That's 52.4 % (certainly not a high number in other to other Soviet rosters of the Tikhonov era BTW).



I'm not avoiding this. As pointed out above it actually confirms what I have claimed. To repeat what I literally said in my last post: the Soviets did hot-housing (mostly at CSKA) in order to gain an advantage in international competition.



The other option was to allow a more balanced and more competitive league by not stacking his team as much as he did.

52.4% vs. 34.8%. That's 1-in-3 vs. 1- in -2. Not that big a difference.

Your analysis is faulty in this respect. You talk as though resources were equal between CSKA, Central Army headquarters, in comparison to Spartak and Krylya Sovetov, representing petty trade unions. Not even close. There was a huge disparity in money, facilities, influence and all other measurements of power. Even Dynamo couldn't really compete. To achieve the goal, which was winning medals, it would have been both futile and fatal to try to artificially create balance for the small number of fans who existed in building an international power house.

 

[patnyrnyg]

52.4% vs. 34.8%. That's 1-in-3 vs. 1- in -2. Not that big a difference.

Your analysis is faulty in this respect. You talk as though resources were equal between CSKA, Central Army headquarters, in comparison to Spartak and Krylya Sovetov, representing petty trade unions. Not even close. There was a huge disparity in money, facilities, influence and all other measurements of power. Even Dynamo couldn't really compete. To achieve the goal, which was winning medals, it would have been both futile and fatal to try to artificially create balance for the small number of fans who existed in building an international power house.

Even at 52%, 17 of the 21 players were from 2 teams and only 4 were represented. The Canadian roster was from 10 different teams.

 

[Theokritos]

52.4% vs. 34.8%. That's 1-in-3 vs. 1- in -2. Not that big a difference.

It is a big difference and I trust everybody else realizes that.

Your analysis is faulty in this respect. You talk as though resources were equal... There was a huge disparity in money, facilities, influence and all other measurements of power. Even Dynamo couldn't really compete. To achieve the goal, which was winning medals, it would have been both futile and fatal to try to artificially create balance for the small number of fans who existed in building an international power house.

1) Why would it have been futile or even fatal to not use all available means and resources to stack CSKA so much that they dominated the league as they did?

2) Small number of fans: The following picture is from a Dinamo game in 1946-1947, the first season of Soviet hockey:

 

[Yakushev72]

It is a big difference and I trust everybody else realizes that.



1) Why would it have been futile or even fatal to not use all available means and resources to stack CSKA so much that they dominated the league as they did?

2) Small number of fans: The following picture is from a Dinamo game in 1946-1947, the first season of Soviet hockey:

In regard to (1), at a time when hockey was in its infancy, and the only hockey players available, other than soldiers in the Army, were basically neighborhood kids who wanted to play hockey, the only option that could produce early success was to bring the good players together under intense training. There were too few decent hockey players available in the early years to compound mediocrity by having one or two good players surrounded by a bunch of other guys who could barely stand up on skates.

(2) is laughable! Could you have possibly found anything more anecdotal than that picture? This game was clearly historic and iconic, which is why it drew about 60,000 fans outdoors (although, even today, some outdoor bandy matches will draw up to 40,000 fans). About 10 years later, when the first indoor hockey rinks were built (only about 60 through 1992), 1,000 fans was a heavy attendance for anything other than CSKA-Dynamo, where you could get up to 3,000 spectators.

 

[VMBM]

Soviet roster:
Tyzhnykh (CSKA), Myshkin (Dinamo); Kasatonov (CSKA), Starikov (CSKA), Zubkov (CSKA), Stelnov (CSKA), Gusarov (CSKA), Pervukhin (Dinamo), Bilyaletdinov (Dinamo); Krutov (CSKA), Makarov (CSKA), Larionov (CSKA), M.Vasilyev (CSKA), I.Gimayev (CSKA), Svetlov (Dinamo), Semyonov (Dinamo), Yashin (Dinamo), Varnakov (Gorky), Skvortsov (Gorky), Kovin (Gorky), Shepelev (Spartak).

21 players overall, 11 of them from CSKA. That's 52.4 % (certainly not a high number in other to other Soviet rosters of the Tikhonov era BTW).

For comparison's sake, the Soviet roster at the 1988 Olympics:

Ilya Byakin, D (Avtomobilist)
Vyacheslav Bykov, F (CSKA)
Viacheslav Fetisov, D (CSKA)
Alexei Gusarov, D (CSKA)
Sergei Yashin, F (Dinamo Moscow)
Valeri Kamensky, F (CSKA)
Alexei Kasatonov, D (CSKA)
Andrei Khomutov, F (CSKA)
Vladimir Krutov, F (CSKA)
Igor Larionov, F (CSKA)
Aleksandr Kozhevnikov, F (Spartak)
Igor Kravchuk, D (CSKA)
Andrei Lomakin, F (Dinamo Moscow)
Sergei Makarov, F (CSKA)
Alexander Mogilny, F (CSKA)
Sergei Mylnikov, G (CSKA)
Vitali Samoilov, G (Dinamo Riga)
Anatoli Semenov, F (Dinamo Moscow)
Sergei Starikov, D (CSKA)
Igor Stelnov, D (CSKA)
Sergei Svetlov, F (Dinamo Moscow)
Aleksandr Chernykh, F (Khimik)

14 out of 22, that's about 63.5 %. Still, not quite 2/3

 

[Theokritos]

In regard to (1), at a time when hockey was in its infancy, and the only hockey players available, other than soldiers in the Army, were basically neighborhood kids who wanted to play hockey, the only option that could produce early success was to bring the good players together under intense training. There were too few decent hockey players available in the early years to compound mediocrity by having one or two good players surrounded by a bunch of other guys who could barely stand up on skates.

I don't accept your premise about the talent or skill level. The non-CSKA players in this 1947 video (CSKA vs Spartak)...



...and in this 1949 video (Tallinn vs Spartak) don't look like they "could barely stand up on skates":



Not really surprising when you consider the strong bandy background of the Soviets. But even if the premise was right then it would only justify the transfer policy in the 1940s and 1950s and not in the 1960s and 1970s. Tarasov was in charge of CSKA right until 1974.

(2) is laughable! Could you have possibly found anything more anecdotal than that picture? This game was clearly historic and iconic, which is why it drew about 60,000 fans outdoors (although, even today, some outdoor bandy matches will draw up to 40,000 fans). About 10 years later, when the first indoor hockey rinks were built (only about 60 through 1992), 1,000 fans was a heavy attendance for anything other than CSKA-Dynamo, where you could get up to 3,000 spectators.

If you take away other clubs' best players year after year so you win the title season after season then that's certainly not going to encourage people to support and attend the other clubs. And the low attendance is then used as an argument to take away the best players of the other clubs... Solid way to argue right there.

For comparison's sake, the Soviet roster at the 1988 Olympics:

Ilya Byakin, F (Avtomobilist)
Vyacheslav Bykov, F (CSKA)
Viacheslav Fetisov, D (CSKA)
Alexei Gusarov, D (CSKA)
Sergei Yashin, F (Dinamo Moscow)
Valeri Kamensky, F (CSKA)
Alexei Kasatonov, D (CSKA)
Andrei Khomutov, F (CSKA)
Vladimir Krutov, F (CSKA)
Igor Larionov, F (CSKA)
Aleksandr Kozhevnikov, F (Spartak)
Igor Kravchuk, D (CSKA)
Andrei Lomakin, F (Dinamo Moscow)
Sergei Makarov, F (CSKA)
Alexander Mogilny, F (CSKA)
Sergei Mylnikov, G (CSKA)
Vitali Samoilov, G (Dinamo Riga)
Anatoli Semenov, F (Dinamo Moscow)
Sergei Starikov, D (CSKA)
Igor Stelnov, D (CSKA)
Sergei Svetlov (Dinamo Moscow)
Aleksandr Chernykh (Khimik)

14 out of 22, that's about 63.5 %. Still, not quite 2/3

Yes, "up to 60+ %" would have been more like it.

 

[Jussi]

Just a heads up for the Finns, it airs tonight on the Docventures series. The hilarious, epic, set up can already be watched at YLE Areena: http://areena.yle.fi/1-2862269

 

[Jussi]

Interesting, Gabe Polsky said on Finnish tv that Russian theaters and now tv networks refused to air the documentary because it wasn't "patriotic enough".

 

[Erikfromfin]

Was fantastic.. even though the quests were better than hoped I wish there was some former player that faced them to tell inside stories like Tamminen