From: tarkkone@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Lauri Tarkkonen)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
Subject: Re: Jarmo Myllys & European Goalies
Date: 13 Oct 92 09:29:14 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In <5439@balrog.ctron.com> mattb@ctron.com (Matt Brown) writes:

>(Staffan Axelsson) writes:

>>North America has produced a lot of top quality goalies themselves
>>and there really hasn't been any need for European goalies, even
>>if they have been 'great' in our (Europeans') eyes. 

>There have been a good number of European goaltenders that have started
>for NHL/WHA teams, starting (I believe) with the WHA Whalers back in the
>70's (Abramsson? I'll have to look it up at home). Almost every team has
>had a European goalie in their line-up for a full season, at least, over
>the years. If you look at on ice statistics, none have reached the level
>of performance of the best North American goalie in a given year. Only
>one that I can remember has reached something close to superstar status, 
>Pelle Lindberg, and his career was cut short by his death in a car accident.

I fully agree that the top Canadian goalkeepeers are in most cases better
than the European. The development of a top goalie is sometimes slow and
there are really many Canadians (and some Americans) who got the proper 
chance after a lenghty minor league career. The Europeans that come to
the NHL-camps are mostly young fellows and some of them are not ready
for the NHL. Some European top goalies reach their peak after they have
familywise and professionally (I mean outside of hockey) settled down
and they are not keen to come to the NHL. To day it might be different,
because there are more players in the European leagues that play full time
hockey and might be still interested in the NHL after approaching 30.

If I have to take an example, I could imagine that Jukka Tammi, from Ilves
in Tampere, Finland would be suitable for an NHL tryout. Maybe Pekka
Lindmark from Malm| IF, Malm|, Sweden would be ready for NHL. I believe
we will never find out.

>Two points about this, however.
>1) It is difficult to tell if they have been given equal chances. I have
>   seen no visible discrimination or favoritism, and haven't heard any
>   reported, but that is no proof. 

I believe that the coach wants to win a hockey game and he puts the
best men on the ice. The best men in his opinion. If some of us have
a different opinion we might call it favoritism. :-).

>   However, it seems like many of the
>   European goalies have given up early, rather than sticking it out the
>   way North Americans do. You don't see European goalies playing years
>   in the minors before sticking with an NHL club. This may change, now
>   that there are more XSoviet goalkeepers available, and they have less
>   to return home to (both Irbe and Trefilov are in the minors this year,
>   for example). Other Europeans can return home and get comparatively
>   easy work. The stress of an 84 game season is harder on a goalie than
>   a skater, in my opinion, and playing half that in a familiar setting
>   must be much less stressful.

The problem is that Soviet Union never had any real top goalie after
Vjateslav Tretjak. Their hockey did not have the tradition to develope
top goalies. Tretjak was an individual product of Anatoli Tarasov, he
was 'privately' trained, physically and mentally and there is nobody
to continue that work.

>2) Only 1 to 4 goalies in the league reach this level per year, so it isn't
>   that surprising that most have been North American, by numbers alone.

>>Also, the goalie's task is a bit different on small rinks, sometimes acting
>>like a third defenseman as opposed to the European goalie who is usually a 
>>bit more stationary. This has been an advantage for N American goalies over
>>European goalies since they're used to this from the minor leagues.

The North American goalie is more active and in a way plays as a third 
defenseman. It demands more skills, stickhandling and skating and some
tactical judgment.

>This is a fascinating point. I had never noticed this before Staffan pointed
>it out, but looking back over the international games I have seen, and the 
>european goalies in the NHL, I recollect that in the international games,
>goalies are less likely to leave the goal area to stop a puck behind the
>net, and even less likely to go to the corner to play the puck. Now, with 
>a wider rink, this makes perfect sense. But with the larger area behind the
>goal, I would have guessed that having the goalie stop the puck behind
>the net would become more important. More difficult, but more important.
>I would have also thought that if the goalies didn't do this regularly, that
>dumping the puck in would be more effective. But this isn't usually thought
>of as a characteristic of the European game. Curious. Any insight from our
>European correspondents?

Reason #1 for the development of the passive goalies:
Earlier the job of the goalie in juniors was given to the worst skater
and stickhandler. (there are exceptions) and he was not expected to 
carry out any heroics outside the crease. 

Reason #2 for the development of the passive goalies:

In bigger rink the advantage of the skater versus the goalie is bigger,
the risk of loosing the puck while escapading behind the net or in the
corners are bigger. While there is more space behind the net, it makes
it more difficult to stop the puck and the risk of missing it is again
bigger.

When you combine these, the big rink that favors the skaters and the 
goalie inferior in skating and stickhandling, you see that it is safer
to stand in front of the net.

I do not say that the top goalies are inferior in skating or stickhandling
to anybody, but the style  comes from the expectations sat upon the majority.

>Or is this just a selective memory/halucination on my part, triggered
>by Staffan's comment?

>>European defensemen and forwards have been/are attractive for NHL teams in
>>the sense that they are usually more skilled in passing and skating than the
>>typical NHL enforcer. There has not been any such advantage (quite naturally)
>>for the European goalie over the N American goalie.

The big rink favors passing and skating game. The best Europeans are
good in that, but because of the passive play of the goalies, they are
inferior in this department. To develop the tactical eye and the courage
to play more actively will also take some time and practice.

Because the risk to fumble for the European goalies is bigger they
play more conservatively, also because that is what is expected they
do not get the blame for that.

>Is the (or was the) NHL style game harder to adjust to for goalies used to
>European hockey? If so, is it the way offense is generated, or is it the
>defensive system? How big a factor is language? Goalies tend to give more
>verbal instruction or feedback to teammates during play. Is the language
>barrier bigger here than for a French Canadian goalie? Any thoughts?


It is more difficult to adjust to the acitve play than the passive play.

>If I've got some time, I'll hit the books and post some Euro-goalie stats
>from yesteryear.

>Matt

- Lauri Tarkkonen