Igor Larionov says the NHL style of hockey lacks creativity

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

That's a bit of an exaggeration in my mind. It was also the era of expansion and the watering down of talent leads to increased scoring plus the introduction of the slapshot and the curved stick made goalies look bad.

The slapshot and the curved stick were both introduced in the early 1960s.

As for expansion, it is true that expansion, up to a point, results in increased scoring. Beyond that point, scoring actually goes down because there are too many teams with no talent to speak of at either end of the ice. It's true, for instance, that in the early 1970s the Bruins and Habs set team scoring records. But they did it against expansion teams that often failed to crack 200 goals per year.

Anyway, none of this accounts for the fact that defencemen were counted on to carry a much greater part of the offensive workload in the 70s and 80s than they are today. A team like this year's Flames, with 4 defencemen in the top 10 of team scoring, would have been nothing unusual back then. Today, it's like they are playing a whole different game from their competition. (One reason why they are doing so much better than naive statistical analysis would predict.)

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

It's no accident that the highest-scoring era in NHL history came when nearly every defenceman in the league had grown up wanting to be Bobby Orr. Some degree of offensive creativity was expected from every skater on the ice, not just the forwards. This year's Flames are a partial throwback to that, which is a big reason why they are so much fun to watch.

I think that Gaudreau being on the team has an effect on the rest of the players. They see him do things with the puck that make them a little bit more confident in what they can do.

That relates to one of the reasons I like Giordano as captain. He's an example of offence and defence co-existing harmoniously. There can't be an offense vs. defence split in the room when Giordano is showing the team how to do both, without diminishing either.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The slapshot and the curved stick were both introduced in the early 1960s.

As for expansion, it is true that expansion, up to a point, results in increased scoring. Beyond that point, scoring actually goes down because there are too many teams with no talent to speak of at either end of the ice. It's true, for instance, that in the early 1970s the Bruins and Habs set team scoring records. But they did it against expansion teams that often failed to crack 200 goals per year.

Anyway, none of this accounts for the fact that defencemen were counted on to carry a much greater part of the offensive workload in the 70s and 80s than they are today. A team like this year's Flames, with 4 defencemen in the top 10 of team scoring, would have been nothing unusual back then. Today, it's like they are playing a whole different game from their competition. (One reason why they are doing so much better than naive statistical analysis would predict.)

Yeah the slapshot was introduced by Boom Boom Geoffrion and later the Hulls but it was frowned upon and IIRC didn't become common practice until the 70s.

[Puppet Guy]

Ken Dryden had a good take when he wrote The Game:

The Canadian game of hockey was weaned on long northern winters uncluttered by things to do. It grew up on ponds and rivers, in big open spaces, unorganized, often solitary, only occasionally moved into arenas for practices or games. In recent generations, that has changed. Canadians have moved from farms and towns to cities and suburbs; they've discovered skis, snowmobiles, and southern vacations; they've civilized winter and moved it indoors. A game we once played on rivers and ponds, later on streets and driveways and in backyards, we now play in arenas, in full team uniform, with coaches and referees, or to an ever-increasing extent we don't play at all. For, once a game is organized, unorganized games seem a wasteful use of time; and once a game moves indoors, it won't move outdoors again. Hockey has become suburbanized, and as part of our suburban middle-class culture, it has changed.

http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/thro...real-canadiens

[BACKCHECK!!!]

I've played on an all-former-Soviet team, and I can tell you that they all HATE the Canadiam style of hockey. They think we are ruining hockey.

All of the truisms that we were taught about hockey are like biazarro-world advice for destroying hockey to them.

Canada - "Hockey is a game of mistakes. Whoever makes the fewest, wins."

Russia - "If you want something to happen, MAKE something happen."


Canada - "When you're losing, don't try to be a hero, just stick to the fundamentals."

Russia - "Well we're down by two, time for somebody to be a hero."


Canada - "When you're 1-on-1, make the safe play"

Russia - "When you're 1-on-1, this is your opportunity to be a game-breaker."


Canada - "Your best players should be your best players at both ends of the ice"

Russia - "Why on earth do you want your offensively brilliant first-line centre playing below your own goal line? Any scrub can play defence, scoring is precious, and your scorers should be put in a position to do so as much as possible."


Which style of hockey is *better* is a matter of debate. I don't think there's much to choose between them, Canada just has more players that can execute their system at the highest levels.

But there's zero question about which style is more boring.

[BACKCHECK!!!]

Also, am I the only one seeing a picture of Butters from Southpark dressed as the Russian cartoon character 'Cheburashka' as one of the Quick Reply buttons on the forum?

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by BACKCHECK!!!

I've played on an all-former-Soviet team, and I can tell you that they all HATE the Canadiam style of hockey. They think we are ruining hockey.

All of the truisms that we were taught about hockey are like biazarro-world advice for destroying hockey to them.

Canada - "Hockey is a game of mistakes. Whoever makes the fewest, wins."

Russia - "If you want something to happen, MAKE something happen."


Canada - "When you're losing, don't try to be a hero, just stick to the fundamentals."

Russia - "Well we're down by two, time for somebody to be a hero."


Canada - "When you're 1-on-1, make the safe play"

Russia - "When you're 1-on-1, this is your opportunity to be a game-breaker."


Canada - "Your best players should be your best players at both ends of the ice"

Russia - "Why on earth do you want your offensively brilliant first-line centre playing below your own goal line? Any scrub can play defence, scoring is precious, and your scorers should be put in a position to do so as much as possible."


Which style of hockey is *better* is a matter of debate. I don't think there's much to choose between them, Canada just has more players that can execute their system at the highest levels.

But there's zero question about which style is more boring.

This is interesting. At how many of the best on best tourney's have the superior talented Russians defeated the Canadians for them to have this superior idea of their hockey?

[BACKCHECK!!!]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

This is interesting. At how many of the best on best tourney's have the superior talented Russians defeated the Canadians for them to have this superior idea of their hockey?

Because god knows that hockey doesn't exist outside the 2002-2014 Olympics.

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by BACKCHECK!!!

Because god knows that hockey doesn't exist outside the 2002-2014 Olympics.

It does exist outside those Olympic games. Do you consider the Russian teams playing in the Olympics from 1950-2002 as superior, or did the fact that they were professionals vs. a bunch of college kids, or senior mens teams throw the event in the Russians favour? Since the Canadians and Americans have been sending their best players which teams have won more events (WJC, Olympics, U18's)? Where are the Russian players considered better?

Do you discount every Canadian kid as pluggers or system players, such as Crosby, Toews, Orr, Gretzky. It is fine for Larionov to state what he wants but to lump all Canadian players into a system (which if you are being realistic the Russian's play more of a system than anyone) type player is incorrect. I agree that coaching kids at a real young age to play a certain system isn't right either, but try coaching kids to have fun and see how many parents are screaming about their kids not being developed properly.

Your comments about playing with a bunch of Russians is disingenous to say the least. They prefer their system of play and development which is fine, but to state the comments about the Canadian's playing the way they do is the same as Don Cherry's comments about Euro players.

[JohnnySkittles]

Russian style is definitely more entertaining thats for sure. If the NHL were to adopt more so their style of play, it would help the league a lot. But it'll never happen

[OBCT]

Okay, I'll admit that wide-open pond hockey is more fun to watch if my team isn't great, or is losing a game. However - and I could very well be in the minority here - I found watching Team Canada in last year's Olympics to be incredibly enjoyable (moreso after round robin, but even the round robin provided some exciting dramatics).

Did these games feature constant odd-man rushes and brilliant scoring chances? Not really. Did they feature a Canada team chock-full of supremely talented players who bought into a team-oriented style of play and put on a showcase of sound, balanced hockey? Yes. That team epitomized what the NHL style of play should look like under near-ideal conditions. Their ability to play as a team and control the pace of the game even against other elite teams/players was remarkable, and absolutely entertaining. Although that degree of team cohesion and domination may never be matched again in similar conditions at the international level, I will remember that game fondly for many years.

I get that the average casual hockey fan might not appreciate all the nuances of that type of hockey, and might even prefer a "poorly" played 6-5 game just because of the goals, but for me, many styles can be entertaining if executed well. The 2014 Canadian Men's Olympic Hockey Team made NHL-style hockey beautiful.

[BACKCHECK!!!]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

It does exist outside those Olympic games. Do you consider the Russian teams playing in the Olympics from 1950-2002 as superior, or did the fact that they were professionals vs. a bunch of college kids, or senior mens teams throw the event in the Russians favour? Since the Canadians and Americans have been sending their best players which teams have won more events (WJC, Olympics, U18's)? Where are the Russian players considered better?

Do you discount every Canadian kid as pluggers or system players, such as Crosby, Toews, Orr, Gretzky. It is fine for Larionov to state what he wants but to lump all Canadian players into a system (which if you are being realistic the Russian's play more of a system than anyone) type player is incorrect. I agree that coaching kids at a real young age to play a certain system isn't right either, but try coaching kids to have fun and see how many parents are screaming about their kids not being developed properly.

Your comments about playing with a bunch of Russians is disingenous to say the least. They prefer their system of play and development which is fine, but to state the comments about the Canadian's playing the way they do is the same as Don Cherry's comments about Euro players.

Jesus, calm down.

Canadian hockey is more risk-averse, and Russian hockey is more oriented towards exciting things happening.

That's it. That's what we're talking about.

You're ranting on about how we must think Russian players are so superior, and that Gretzky is a plug, and if we think their system is so superior then why don't they win every game, and arguing against things that literally nobody has said or even implied.

I explicitly said that I *don't* think the Russian system produces better results.

I said that Canada *does* produce better players.

And I don't know what you think is disingenuous about me relating how Russians look at Canadian hockey, but neither do I care..

Congratulations, you are now #8 on the prestigious BACKCHECK!!! ignore list.

[indes]

It seems like an odd observation to make to me. Whenever I watch the WJC or even the world cup, the Russians and other European teams seem to gel really well and play the same style (Finnish goaltending anyone). I see the North American teams struggle to find each other and get on the same page. You say the Russians like to take more risks, I say the Canadians are more aware of the consequences of those risks. How many times tonight did Brodie rush down the ice only to be covered by the center and have it go unnoticed that he took that risk? It really just adds to the stereotype that Russian players are mostly 1 dimensional scorers up front. Sure it makes the game exciting if you have 4 on 1s and 5 on 2s but the other team is a lot more excited to go the other way on no defenseman. There's 2 sides of the puck, one is more exciting than the other and ignoring the boring side will lose you more games than not.

[Jay Random]

If Russian hockey is so much more creative offensively, and North American hockey is such a stodgy defence-first mess, then why is scoring lower in the KHL than the NHL?

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

If Russian hockey is so much more creative offensively, and North American hockey is such a stodgy defence-first mess, then why is scoring lower in the KHL than the NHL?

Cause as much as Igor wants to think they are superior, as Tyler Moss would say, they are good at "practise" players.

[WCW Nitro]

I think some are missing the point of what Larionov said, he's not saying which style is more effective in terms of winning, just that one style of play is more creative and exciting.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

I think some are missing the point of what Larionov said, he's not saying which style is more effective in terms of winning, just that one style of play is more creative and exciting.

Again, if Russian hockey is so much more creative and exciting, why is it lower-scoring?

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Yeah the slapshot was introduced by Boom Boom Geoffrion and later the Hulls but it was frowned upon and IIRC didn't become common practice until the 70s.

Probably because it posed a safety threat to goalies until the equipment caught up?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by heep223

Probably because it posed a safety threat to goalies until the equipment caught up?

Nobody gave a damn about the safety of goalies in those days. For the first 40-odd years of the NHL, goalies didn't even wear masks, and any goalie who attempted to introduce such a thing was shamed into dropping it.

[mister__big]

Originally Posted by ZedMan

I like the article overall but this:

"In Russia right now, there are four or five Datsyuks playing in the KHL who never got their chance."

I have a bit of a hard time believing. We've had a couple KHL scoring stars transition to the NHL now and, well, they're not Datsyuks.

Perhaps he meant it literally, as in there are four or five guys named Datsyuk in the KHL.

Do I need green text for this?