The Greatest Sporting Event in History

[Argoknot]

And let's not forget that by the time game 4 ended in Vancouver ... the country was totally against the team.

I get the point you're trying to make but I think against is the wrong word. Disappointed, let down, embarrassed, yes, but against, no. There were those in Vancouver who booed but I think that was for the reasons in the previous sentence and that they preferred the Soviet style to the style we had been playing to that point.

The more in depth reading I have been doing on this subject lately, the more impressed I am with what we did and less with what the Soviets did (or in this case didn't do.) They didn't adapt to the changing game, Canada did. I see the Soviets great individual skills as something akin to Brazilian soccer ball juggling, great to look at, but does it put the ball in the net?

There were two big myths about the series that were stated during and just after the series and then were dispelled, that I believe actually weren't myth but fact.

The first is that we didn't do well because we weren't in shape. That was the original excuse and was later somewhat morphed into the Soviets just having better skills and being generally better. But the fact was we weren't in any kind of shape after three weeks of training camp to even skate beside a team that trained eleven months of the year. Most of the games (until game six) we started well and ran out of gas. By that time we had figured out their set plays (that they never changed) and were finally fit enough to enable us to break down their plays and use ours.

The other excuse was that we weren't allowed to use WHA players which later morphed into (aside from Bobby Hull) they wouldn't have helped anyway. Bobby Hull, Gerry Cheevers, and JC Tremblay were all veterans invited for 72. In 1974, despite being two years older they were dominant versus the Soviets in the WHA series of 1974. Even though the WHA lost that series rather handily it was closer than people remember. The Soviets thought Cheevers was the best goalie they ever faced and they were amazed by Hull and Howe who were both excellent against them. In Tretiak's book he was very impressed by Tremblay. Had we have had Hull, Tremblay and Cheevers it would have been a different series, the poor fitness issue might have been lessened by those players who instinctively knew how to play the Russians. Where Dryden floundered in his first two games despite previous experience against them, Cheevers knew how to play them and his style fitted playing against them. I realize some will think that two years later those three players would have had a better "book" on the Soviets but those player's styles were a good match for the Russians as amazing was that of Howe.

I will withhold judgment on Derek Sanderson who was also invited. People forget what a great player he was (especially defensively) as it was about this time that his career and lifestyle seemed to be going off the rails so who knows what might have happened with him if he had played.

[OV Argo]

I get the point you're trying to make but I think against is the wrong word. Disappointed, let down, embarrassed, yes, but against, no. There were those in Vancouver who booed but I think that was for the reasons in the previous sentence and that they preferred the Soviet style to the style we had been playing to that point.

The more in depth reading I have been doing on this subject lately, the more impressed I am with what we did and less with what the Soviets did (or in this case didn't do.) They didn't adapt to the changing game, Canada did. I see the Soviets great individual skills as something akin to Brazilian soccer ball juggling, great to look at, but does it put the ball in the net?

There were two big myths about the series that were stated during and just after the series and then were dispelled, that I believe actually weren't myth but fact.

The first is that we didn't do well because we weren't in shape. That was the original excuse and was later somewhat morphed into the Soviets just having better skills and being generally better. But the fact was we weren't in any kind of shape after three weeks of training camp to even skate beside a team that trained eleven months of the year. Most of the games (until game six) we started well and ran out of gas. By that time we had figured out their set plays (that they never changed) and were finally fit enough to enable us to break down their plays and use ours.

The other excuse was that we weren't allowed to use WHA players which later morphed into (aside from Bobby Hull) they wouldn't have helped anyway. Bobby Hull, Gerry Cheevers, and JC Tremblay were all veterans invited for 72. In 1974, despite being two years older they were dominant versus the Soviets in the WHA series of 1974. Even though the WHA lost that series rather handily it was closer than people remember. The Soviets thought Cheevers was the best goalie they ever faced and they were amazed by Hull and Howe who were both excellent against them. In Tretiak's book he was very impressed by Tremblay. Had we have had Hull, Tremblay and Cheevers it would have been a different series, the poor fitness issue might have been lessened by those players who instinctively knew how to play the Russians. Where Dryden floundered in his first two games despite previous experience against them, Cheevers knew how to play them and his style fitted playing against them. I realize some will think that two years later those three players would have had a better "book" on the Soviets but those player's styles were a good match for the Russians as amazing was that of Howe.

I will withhold judgment on Derek Sanderson who was also invited. People forget what a great player he was (especially defensively) as it was about this time that his career and lifestyle seemed to be going off the rails so who knows what might have happened with him if he had played.

Can't believe you are mentioning Tremblay or Cheevers but make no mention of freakin' Bobby Orr being unable to suit up for Canada in 72 (IMO they win the series handily i - maybe 8 straight - if Orr was there in his prime) ; Orr was arguably the greatest hockey talent ever - he played basically on one leg for Canada in 76 and was the Canada Cup MVP on a team Canada that was (arguably) quite a bit better than the 72 squad, and is considered by some (myself included) to be the best hockey team ever.

[Argo57]

Can't believe you are mentioning Tremblay or Cheevers but make no mention of freakin' Bobby Orr being unable to suit up for Canada in 72 (IMO they win the series handily i - maybe 8 straight - if Orr was there in his prime) ; Orr was arguably the greatest hockey talent ever - he played basically on one leg for Canada in 76 and was the Canada Cup MVP on a team Canada that was (arguably) quite a bit better than the 72 squad, and is considered by some (myself included) to be the best hockey team ever.

Good point OV, WHA players weren't included in the selection process either, I'd also include my personal favourite Bobby Hull into the equation as well.

[Argoknot]

Orr was arguably the greatest hockey talent ever - he played basically on one leg for Canada in 76 and was the Canada Cup MVP on a team Canada that was (arguably) quite a bit better than the 72 squad, and is considered by some (myself included) to be the best hockey team ever.

You speak the gospel. I didn't mention Orr because he wasn't specifically excluded from the team and there was some hope he might have played in the series when they got to Moscow.

[OV Argo]

You speak the gospel. I didn't mention Orr because he wasn't specifically excluded from the team and there was some hope he might have played in the series when they got to Moscow.

Yes - Orr was injured.

Orr AND Bobby Hull on that 72 Team Canada and maybe they win that series quite handily - though the Russians may have shocked them for an early win or 2 with their different style play and far superior conditioning; Orr could control games - the Russians would not have had the puck near as much with Orr on the ice; and Hull was one of the all-time great goal scorers. Both those guys in their prime unable to suit up for Canada in 72 = incredible talent not there.

[Will]

Can't believe you are mentioning Tremblay or Cheevers but make no mention of freakin' Bobby Orr being unable to suit up for Canada in 72 (IMO they win the series handily i - maybe 8 straight - if Orr was there in his prime) ; Orr was arguably the greatest hockey talent ever - he played basically on one leg for Canada in 76 and was the Canada Cup MVP on a team Canada that was (arguably) quite a bit better than the 72 squad, and is considered by some (myself included) to be the best hockey team ever.

I might put the '87 team as the best ever.

[OV Argo]

I might put the '87 team as the best ever.

Yeah, well - Gretzky & Lemieux were certainly an awesome 1-2 punch for the offence on that team; BUT - i have to disagree - the 76 team just had wayyyyy more overall talent/depth; and especially on defence - Orr, Potvin, plus the Montreal big 3 (Robinson, Savard, Lapointe).

I was around to watch (live on TV) all 3 of those teams (72, 767, 87) play every game in those series'. Great hockey; I wonder if the upcoming tournament can produce some comparable great hockey ?

[Argoknot]

Yeah, well - Gretzky & Lemieux were certainly an awesome 1-2 punch for the offence on that team; BUT - i have to disagree - the 76 team just had wayyyyy more overall talent/depth; and especially on defence - Orr, Potvin, plus the Montreal big 3 (Robinson, Savard, Lapointe)

Yup. By the time 87 came around we had learned how to play the Russians and that included the use of role players who could specialize. In 76 the stars were still playing the part of role players, Darryl Sittler, who was starting to come into his own wasn't sure he'd even make the team and expected to be a role player.

[Argo57]

Yup. By the time 87 came around we had learned how to play the Russians and that included the use of role players who could specialize. In 76 the stars were still playing the part of role players, Darryl Sittler, who was starting to come into his own wasn't sure he'd even make the team and expected to be a role player.

We went and saw the final "Red White" team Canada selection game for the 76 Canada Cup (at the Montreal forum), what a thrill.
The 87 team was impressive however the overall depth and quality of that roster was off the charts.
Loved seeing another Maple Leaf (Sittler) score the big goal as Henderson had done 4 years earlier.

[ArgoRavi]

Yeah, well - Gretzky & Lemieux were certainly an awesome 1-2 punch for the offence on that team; BUT - i have to disagree - the 76 team just had wayyyyy more overall talent/depth; and especially on defence - Orr, Potvin, plus the Montreal big 3 (Robinson, Savard, Lapointe).

I was around to watch (live on TV) all 3 of those teams (72, 767, 87) play every game in those series'. Great hockey; I wonder if the upcoming tournament can produce some comparable great hockey ?

I am not old enough to remember '72 but I agree with OV that the '76 teams was the best one ever for the reasons he has provided. Rogie Vachon was phenomenal in goal too and two Maple Leafs, Darryl Sittler and Lanny McDonald played pivotal roles.