From: pmorris@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Subject: Re: Taking the glow off Canada's victory 20 years later
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:24:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.210630.12925@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, kdc@ccu.umanitoba.ca () writes:
> 
>  There has been quite a bit of talk (in Canada) about this being the
> 20th anniversary of the Canadian victory in the first Canada / Russia
> hockey series.
>  I watched SUMMIT ON ICE last night on CBC (excellent show). 
>  I was VERY DISAPPOINTED and shocked to the "moment of infamy".
>  
>  John Ferguson admitting that Kharmalov was causing Team Canada a lot
>  of grief so he "called Bobby over and told him to go and tap him
>                   on the ankle and break it"
> The Bobby Clarke explaing how he did it (with a replay showing the viscious
> two hander he administered to Kharmalov's ankle, 
>   "I don't know if I broke it but Kharmalov wasn't a factor for the next
>    3 games."
>  
>     So the glorious victory (most Canadians who are old enough can remember
>    where they were when Henderson scored the winning goal in the final game)
>   is tainted with a disgusting act of goonism.   Ferguson seemed proud
>  of having taken care of the pesky little Russian.  (SIGH).
>  
>   It will never be the same for me.
>  
>   Ken De Cruyenaere       U of Manitoba
> 
Ken:

To an extent, I agree with you. It was shocking to see and hear Ferguson so
unashamedly admit the intent to injure Kharlamov. However, just because 
Canada admitted to the deed doesn't mean the Soviets weren't thinking the
same thing about Phil Esposito. The more I watched Summit on Ice, the more
I realized that without Esposito's leadership, both on an off ice, Canada 
would have been defeated. The Soviet who was responsible for covering 
Espo admitted that his job was to stay on top of the Canadian, but he added
that this was not an easy thing to do. Kharlamov was injured, Espo wasn't -
- Canada admitted it's desire to take Kharlomov out of the game, the 
Soviets admited their desire to neutralize Espo -- I don't see much 
difference in the philosophies, just the results.

Another factor which may have influenced the decision to take Khalomov out 
was the fact that the Canadians were being killed by very poor officiating. 
Kharlomov must have had an awful lot of open ice throughout the series 
because of dubious penalties to Canada. If the refs are taking the game 
away from you when you are following the rules, then you have to change 
your game plan (unless you're Jean Paul Parisez). Additional unfairness 
involved the mischief with the Canadian team in Moscow (lost food and 
luggage, mysterious phone calls waking players at all hours of the morning, 
bugged hotel rooms, etc.). The actions of the Canadian team must be 
examined in light of all the variables they were facing.

The fact that they could come back and win is significant. Would the 
results have been different if Kharlomov had played up to his potential? No
-one will ever know, but I doubt it. I remember the series well and 
watching the Canadians seemingly standing still while the USSR skated 
circles around them. The prevailing logic around our t.v. was shouted time 
and time again, "Why don't they hit them?" Seeing Summit on Ice has 
refreshed my memory. Canada had a superior squad. The goals by Peter 
mahavolich, or by paul henderson in game 7 and Phil Esposito's stellar play 
in the slot, meant that we had a muti-faceted attack. If they had sussed 
the USSR weaving pattern earlier in the series, Canada would have been able 
to keep the soviets in check relatively better than they did. But that's 
just bad coaching which can be compensated for by good playing.

It was fun to relive that series -- hockey was the better for it.

Stig (in Newfoundland)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey