Igor Larionov says the NHL style of hockey lacks creativity

[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.

[Daradon]

I think there's a lot more to it than just what Igor is saying. Yes, players in Canada are probably taught to play it safe too early in their career, this was even discussed when we had that big Hockey Canada Summit after losing in 98. But there are other reasons the game looks the way it does in the NHL.

For one, I would argue that very few players are able to be successful creatively in the hardest league in the world. Does it look prettier, or more creative in the KHL or any other lesser league? Maybe. But that's only because the players there can get away with it. If they were so great, they'd be doing the same things here. To that effect, what sense does it make to encourage creativity at the expense of playing the best game you can play?

The three or four Datsyuks who never got their chance doesn't sit with me. If they were as good as him, they'd be here. Teams would kill for another Datsyuk right now. Also, we all know why the Soviets dominated in the 70's and 80's. Because we couldn't (or wouldn't) send our best players to play them, except for a few series. Their best players could play the Olympics, ours could not. America was never their biggest rival anyway. Canada was.

We certainly underestimated the Soviets then, and it showed in the Summit Series. And to be honest, I always felt bad about that slash, didn't seem fair. However, we still won, and a lot of things have changed since then. I'm not sure anyone is underestimating their players now.

So to say it's a superior style, rings a bit hollow to me. And if watching faster, higher scoring, more creative hockey is more fun, than so be it. But you won't be watching the 'best' hockey.

There will always be creative players in the NHL. And as systems change, creative, intelligent players will find new ways to be creative, to break the system. But those players are few and far between.

Lastly, if the Russian style really was better, have them send a team to come play a few NHL teams. We'll see which styles really work the best.

[868904]

Now that I think about it, NHL Larionov is a really good comparable for Gaudreau. Both small but highly skilled playmakers with uncanny vision.

Johnny has a ways to go on the defensive end though to match Larionov's all around game.

[doctajones428]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

^ care to cite some examples of players you beleive fit into this

Benn
Giroux
Crosby
Bergeron
Kopitar
...

[TheDebaser]

Commie hockey is really good at distributing the puck.

[PeteLFan]

Johnny Gudrov

[Igottago]

Interesting article, but its the nature of sport, not just hockey. Any team game that involves skill and some level of team coordination has the exact same issue. You've got teams with offensive philosophies and highly skilled players, then you have other teams trying to figure out a way to neutralize that and get the upper hand. And when you don't have the types of stars that possess those skills? You become the neutralizing team. I don't think there is a philosophical problem in the NHL, its just teams competing and trying to win. And just like other sports, the really skilled players are usually the minority. That's why they're considered stars. There is a level of talent they bring to the game that you don't just learn from years of playing, its almost a natural gift.

[Jacks]

I blame the 90's Devils, mainly Jacques Lemaire. They sucked the fun out of hockey for a long time and changed the game forever IMO.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Interesting article, but I disagree to some extent. Simple and creative aren't mutually exclusive. No doubt Larionov and Makarov were incredibly creative. It didn't hurt that they played together for decades. That just isn't realistic any more, but it has nothing to do with the individual creativity of the players.

Canada in the Sochi games arguably played a simple game, but was still beautiful to watch. Creativity can be expressed in the team concept

[Beatle17]

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.

Wish he would name them. Of the last 2 Russian superstars from the KHL who came over to the NHL, Radulov was a good player but no superstar and Kuznetsov in Washington is a decent 3rd liner. If there are four or five Datsyuks they would be here playing. No matter how anyone compares the league, the best Russian players are in the NHL because of the competition and the money they can make.

[CSharp]

Wow, do I agree with Larionov's article or what? He's hit it on the head of the nail and it's sad that most of the coaches deploy the north-south game (cough, Brent Sutter, cough) and it's just disgustingly boring to watch, especially when the team loses or during the playoffs when the score is low. Right now, even when the Flames are losing, at least Gaudreau makes it very interesting. If you look at the league for the past countless years, most of them were grinders and/or enforcers. How often do you see playmakers become coaches. Even for coaches like Gretzky and Oates, for example, their teams never really amounted to much success because their mentality is that of playing the north-south game and trying to keep things simple even if they had the skilled players. Players are brought up from minor to juniors and all the way to the NHL to play the same way. This is especially true for big players. For smaller players, usually they will try to use their brains and skills to create some space between them and the bigger players. So, most players come into the NHL with the engrained nerve cells to go north-south with no creativity - just skate straight down the boards, dump the puck in, and chase in the corner. A good example is Stajan. Every chance he gets, he'll pass the puck blindly, dump into the corner and start chasing. Then, chase the opposition all the way back into his own zone.

The is why the past couple of seasons are so much more interesting because of Hartley, who is allowing players like Gaudreau and the defencemen to freewheel. It's also great to see how he allows the defence to jump up and be part of the offence at any time. This is definitely a huge change from the Young Guns through the Sutters eras.

But, however entertaining Johnny Hockey is, the only way to win in the NHL is through slugging out those 82 games a season and the 7-game series in the playoffs. There's no doubt about that. I also believe that if the Flames can get a few more Gaudreau type players that can criss-cross and are larger players, this team will be pretty awesome.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Reading this thread makes me feel like I'm at a concert, and specifically at the part usually after the band has just come out and played a few songs and they hit their first quick interlude. At that point, they usually say something like, "its great to be back in Calgary...." and the crowd goes wild as the band they love and respect has mentioned our city..........

[flamesfever]

Larionov's article is very true.

My perspective is somewhat different. I think the most creative hockey I have ever seen came from the Russian teams in the early 70's. To see a guy like Valeri Kharlamov (5 ft 8 inches, 165 lbs) play was witnessing shear "magic on ice". The only way we could beat the Russians was to offset the creative play with brute physical force e.g. the play of the Broadstreet Bullies. And in my mind this is where NA hockey began to diverge from European hockey.

The greatest player in NA I have ever seen was Bobby Orr. In watching him, it was apparent that he was in a league of his own, superior to everyone else on the ice. It's interesting that he has consistently stated that we need to encourage more creativity in hockey.

I agree with Larionov that Gaudreau is one of the most creative players in the NHL today. And I'm also glad that the Flames management are encouraging him to continue playing his game.

[Where ru Chris O'Sullivan]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

Can't say I disagree

"The problem is more philosophical and starts way before players get to the NHL. It’s easier to destroy than to create. As a coach, it’s easier to tell your players to suffocate the opposing team and not turn the puck over. There are still players whose imagination and creativity capture the Soviet spirit — Johnny Gaudreau in Calgary, Patrick Kane and Jonathan Toews in Chicago just to name a few. However, they are becoming exceptions to the rule. Many young players who are intelligent and can see the game four moves ahead are not valued. They’re told “simple, simple, simple.”

http://www.theplayerstribune.com/mir...hockey-russia/

Thanks to Barry Trotz, Ken Hitchcock, Brent Sutter and many others.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

The greatest player in NA I have ever seen was Bobby Orr. In watching him, it was apparent that he was in a league of his own, superior to everyone else on the ice. It's interesting that he has consistently stated that we need to encourage more creativity in hockey.

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.

[sharkov]

Ivan gudrovski

[corporatejay]

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.

Or the fact that goalies were terrible and defensemen could barely skate backwards.

[Vulcan]

I like and respect Larionov but to suggest that there was no skill and it wasn't appreciated in Canadian hockey is just not true.Yeah at the time, the Broadstreet Bullies had lowered the bar for NHL hockey but it was just another cycle that sports goes through.

One of the big differences between Canadian and International hockey is the ice size and the bigger ice allows more free wheeling, so yeah it looks pretty for a while but soon becomes boring.

The biggest reason the Summit Series was close is that the Canadian players were out of shape and weren't cohesive as a team. Once the players became more of a team and got their conditioning up, they proved to be superior. The Russians did give a lesson in conditioning which they can claim as an improvement to the game.

One thing I find interesting, going by memory here, is that the Russians would often be outshot badly even though they often controlled the puck, so despite what you'd see, they must have had a lousy Corsi.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Or the fact that goalies were terrible and defensemen could barely skate backwards.

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.

[Five-hole]

The most boring hockey I've seen recently was the Sochi Olympics on the big ice. That much space is dull. And I feel like it's necessary for Larionov's revered style to be possible.