Of Miracles and Men

[elocomotive]

Did anyone see this 30 for 30 documentary?

I guess it's been out for about a month, but I just saw it last night on Netflix. REALLY well done movie.
It was one part the Miracle on Ice from the other side, one part history of hockey in the Soviet Union, and one part the life of Slava Fetisov. It was really interesting learning how the national team coaching changes there reflected this transition from a more romanticized view of life/communism to the total discipline of the State as the Soviet Union evolved to the fall of the country/hockey program there.

There was one quote in the movie that I thought was one of the best hockey quotes I've heard from the backup goalie who got put into the game in 1980 after Tretiak faltered in the 1st period...
"No one can undo our mistakes. Only the net can catch them.” - Vladimir Myshkin

Curious if anyone else saw it or had thoughts.

 

[jstewismybastardson]

Did anyone see this 30 for 30 documentary?

I guess it's been out for about a month, but I just saw it last night on Netflix. REALLY well done movie.
It was one part the Miracle on Ice from the other side, one part history of hockey in the Soviet Union, and one part the life of Slava Fetisov. It was really interesting learning how the national team coaching changes there reflected this transition from a more romanticized view of life/communism to the total discipline of the State as the Soviet Union evolved to the fall of the country/hockey program there.

There was one quote in the movie that I thought was one of the best hockey quotes I've heard from the backup goalie who got put into the game in 1980 after Tretiak faltered in the 1st period...
"No one can undo our mistakes. Only the net can catch them.” - Vladimir Myshkin

Curious if anyone else saw it or had thoughts.

funny you bring that up cause i watched it Wednesday night on netflix (after i found the new DNS code allowing me to get US netflix because i believe it isnt available on Canadian netflix- lol)

I watched half of it and then i conked out falling asleep ... not an indication it was boring or bad ... just that Im old and tired

The part that i saw (when I was coherent) was good. They really romanticized Anatoli Tarasov (not the first ones to do so) he really was a visionary ...what was the line describing going from tarasov to tikhonov ... going from hockey symphony conductor to hockey accountant lol

overall it really humanized the russian players. We talk of their propaganda of the day but nothing "artistic/theatrical" that ever was produced about the 72 series really showed canada as the bad guy ... I liked the angle about 72 that doesnt get portrayed nearly enough ... that they came to play hockey and the canadians came to goon it up lol ... Canada probably doesnt win if Clarke doesnt break Kharlamovs ankle

 

[elocomotive]

overall it really humanized the russian players. We talk of their propaganda of the day but nothing "artistic/theatrical" that ever was produced about the 72 series really showed canada as the bad guy ... I liked the angle about 72 that doesnt get portrayed nearly enough ... that they came to play hockey and the canadians came to goon it up lol ... Canada probably doesnt win if Clarke doesnt break Kharlamovs ankle

Good thought, Jstew. The documentary didn't say it outright, but it definitely had an implication that Canada basically "cheated" their way to a win by intentionally injuring him. That play by Clarke was pretty unbelievable.

After watching it, I couldn't help but think... "would hockey be better if the Russian way of playing were the predominant form we see today?"

 

[forty_three]

I haven't seen it, but I will look for it. Thanks for the heads up.

One of the best parts of that game was the Russian player with chin resting on his hands up on his stick at the end. That odd little grin was pretty striking. They were just as human as our boys.

 

[DragonfromTO]

funny you bring that up cause i watched it Wednesday night on netflix (after i found the new DNS code allowing me to get US netflix because i believe it isnt available on Canadian netflix- lol)

I watched half of it and then i conked out falling asleep ... not an indication it was boring or bad ... just that Im old and tired

The part that i saw (when I was coherent) was good. They really romanticized Anatoli Tarasov (not the first ones to do so) he really was a visionary ...what was the line describing going from tarasov to tikhonov ... going from hockey symphony conductor to hockey accountant lol

overall it really humanized the russian players. We talk of their propaganda of the day but nothing "artistic/theatrical" that ever was produced about the 72 series really showed canada as the bad guy ... I liked the angle about 72 that doesnt get portrayed nearly enough ... that they came to play hockey and the canadians came to goon it up lol ... Canada probably doesnt win if Clarke doesnt break Kharlamovs ankle

A lot of people I think need to actually sit down and watch that series again. It really doesn't fit the narratives that we tend to hear... the Canadian team pretty consistently has the better of the play and chances even in most of the losses. Dryden played like shit and there were a handful of players that got worked by the Soviets but overall Canada is the better team, but the difference is that Tretiak played much better than Dryden (and also outplayed Tony O, but less so)

 

[DragonfromTO]

Good thought, Jstew. The documentary didn't say it outright, but it definitely had an implication that Canada basically "cheated" their way to a win by intentionally injuring him. That play by Clarke was pretty unbelievable.

After watching it, I couldn't help but think... "would hockey be better if the Russian way of playing were the predominant form we see today?"

Um, despite what Don Cherry might say once a week do you actually think it's not?

 

[pixburgher66]

Really enjoyed this one. And now I really want to see Red Army too.

 

[pixburgher66]

Good thought, Jstew. The documentary didn't say it outright, but it definitely had an implication that Canada basically "cheated" their way to a win by intentionally injuring him. That play by Clarke was pretty unbelievable.

After watching it, I couldn't help but think... "would hockey be better if the Russian way of playing were the predominant form we see today?"

I don't think it's much of a question. The peak of Soviet hockey was beautiful. It was a combination of beautiful passing and offense in addition to possession and team work. Was there ever a group that was better as a team? I don't think that there's really been a time in which the Soviet style has really been showcased in the NHL, which is unfortunate...because from an entertainment point, it's the best. And from an injury point it is too. Think about where the game is today and it's pretty dang depressing.

 

[DragonfromTO]

I don't think it's much of a question. The peak of Soviet hockey was beautiful. It was a combination of beautiful passing and offense in addition to possession and team work. Was there ever a group that was better as a team? I don't think that there's really been a time in which the Soviet style has really been showcased in the NHL, which is unfortunate...because from an entertainment point, it's the best. And from an injury point it is too. Think about where the game is today and it's pretty dang depressing.

Um, maybe any of the teams that beat them? I mean, besides the 1972 series there were 5 Canada Cups (4 if you want to throw out '91 because it was post-Communism) and they only won 1 of them. Hell, they didn't even make the finals in 3 of them.

 

[DragonfromTO]

I don't think it's much of a question. The peak of Soviet hockey was beautiful. It was a combination of beautiful passing and offense in addition to possession and team work. Was there ever a group that was better as a team? I don't think that there's really been a time in which the Soviet style has really been showcased in the NHL, which is unfortunate...because from an entertainment point, it's the best. And from an injury point it is too. Think about where the game is today and it's pretty dang depressing.

Talk to anyone serious in the game today and you'll probably hear about things like puck possession, controlled zone entries etc., things that were hallmarks of the Soviet game. If anyone thinks that the style of game being taught/played today wasn't heavily influenced by the Soviets then I'm not sure what game they've been watching/playing.

 

[pixburgher66]

Um, maybe any of the teams that beat them? I mean, besides the 1972 series there were 5 Canada Cups (4 if you want to throw out '91 because it was post-Communism) and they only won 1 of them. Hell, they didn't even make the finals in 3 of them.

I can't really speak to much of that stuff, because well...I'm 24 and all I've seen are a handful of documentaries and some highlights. That said, in the years those happened I think that we're looking at post-peak Soviet hockey. Like they sort of discuss in the 30 for 30, Tarasov is the father of that genre of hockey, and things sort of changed for them once Tikhonov took over. I'm not trying to bash the Canadian game...I mean, I love hockey, and that in itself is a Canadian invention, but the way you see them play it makes me wish I could see it with today's athletes.

 

[pixburgher66]

Talk to anyone serious in the game today and you'll probably hear about things like puck possession, controlled zone entries etc., things that were hallmarks of the Soviet game. If anyone thinks that the style of game being taught/played today wasn't heavily influenced by the Soviets then I'm not sure what game they've been watching/playing.

Influence, yes. You can call today's game a hybrid, and I think there were a few years where the creativity was a bit more free flowing, but right now it sure doesn't seem that way. But I'd argue that it's still much closer to the Canadian model than the Russian model.

EDIT: I think a big reason why this is is quite simple: the Canadian style beats the Russian style more than the other way around. And the winning way will always prevail. Just wish that, as a fan, we could see more of the Russian model.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

I don't think it's much of a question. The peak of Soviet hockey was beautiful. It was a combination of beautiful passing and offense in addition to possession and team work. Was there ever a group that was better as a team? I don't think that there's really been a time in which the Soviet style has really been showcased in the NHL, which is unfortunate...because from an entertainment point, it's the best. And from an injury point it is too. Think about where the game is today and it's pretty dang depressing.

To some extent I would say the first year and a half coming out of the '04 lockout. With all of the penalties that were handed out and the "new NHL," the game was very free-flowing and finesse based. It didn't last too long unfortunately.

 

[jstewismybastardson]

A lot of people I think need to actually sit down and watch that series again. It really doesn't fit the narratives that we tend to hear... the Canadian team pretty consistently has the better of the play and chances even in most of the losses. Dryden played like shit and there were a handful of players that got worked by the Soviets but overall Canada is the better team, but the difference is that Tretiak played much better than Dryden (and also outplayed Tony O, but less so)

im not denying that Canada outplayed the Soviets overall or that Tretiak didnt keep them in it. Just saying that if they had their best most dynamic player at 100% in game 7 and 8, they probably would have won one of those deciding games

 

[DragonfromTO]

Influence, yes. You can call today's game a hybrid, and I think there were a few years where the creativity was a bit more free flowing, but right now it sure doesn't seem that way. But I'd argue that it's still much closer to the Canadian model than the Russian model.

EDIT: I think a big reason why this is is quite simple: the Canadian style beats the Russian style more than the other way around. And the winning way will always prevail. Just wish that, as a fan, we could see more of the Russian model.

Not to sound like a jerk, but didn't you just say that you're 24 and have only seen limited highlights of the Soviet teams? Is it not also possible that your idea of what they played like isn't accurate in the first place?

For instance, when you think of the artistry of the Soviets during the Summit Series in 1972 do you think of Boris Mikhailov kicking Gary Bergman until he was bleeding all over his socks and shin pads?

 

[DragonfromTO]

im not denying that Canada outplayed the Soviets overall or that Tretiak didnt keep them in it. Just saying that if they had their best most dynamic player at 100% in game 7 and 8, they probably would have won one of those deciding games

Why though? They had been outplayed in 5 (possibly even 6) of the first 6 games with him healthy

 

[DragonfromTO]

I can't really speak to much of that stuff, because well...I'm 24 and all I've seen are a handful of documentaries and some highlights. That said, in the years those happened I think that we're looking at post-peak Soviet hockey. Like they sort of discuss in the 30 for 30, Tarasov is the father of that genre of hockey, and things sort of changed for them once Tikhonov took over. I'm not trying to bash the Canadian game...I mean, I love hockey, and that in itself is a Canadian invention, but the way you see them play it makes me wish I could see it with today's athletes.

Sure, but didn't the 30 for 30 movie also have a narrative that they had to support?

 

[dash]

CCCP won the Corsi and Fenwick battle, Canada won the series.

 

[pixburgher66]

To some extent I would say the first year and a half coming out of the '04 lockout. With all of the penalties that were handed out and the "new NHL," the game was very free-flowing and finesse based. It didn't last too long unfortunately.

That year came to mind (I think it was greatly influenced by the "CALL ALL PENALTIES" mentality), but I was too busy watching a horrible team to fully appreciate that year, hah.

 

[pixburgher66]

Sure, but didn't the 30 for 30 movie also have a narrative that they had to support?

The narrative they supported was that the US ended Soviet hockey. I think that's accurate to a tiny degree, but that they were already on the downswing.