Article "The Beautiful Game" By Igor Larionov

[nuck nit]

As for Kassian, he's careless at times - that's his problem and therein lies his inconsistency

Larionov was creative, but he was also responsible. Kassian is very careless with the puck sometimes, which lead to a lot of turnovers - you see it in the games when he's off (ex. Minnesota). He'll need to be more responsible with the puck - especially on breakouts from our own zone.

Larionov was a defensively deep,responsible center.He had effortless skating and a near perfect pass.

What would happen to a young man that had defensive issues and mouthed off to the press in the Tikhonov era?

[Hairy Kneel]

Our Sedinery almost got us the cup once upon a time....

[Boudrias]

I thought Canada beat the Russians in 1972?

Larionov's was a great hockey player but his style represented one way of playing the game. It is not the only way.

Suggesting a north south game is non-productive and stifling ignores how important and viable a physical game can be. That game beat the Russians any number of times. For every Bobby Clarke there was a Reggie Leech. Which do you want? Of course I want both of them.

[Dazzle]

Yeah and he's holding onto the puck more and more. I think we need to see a little more from him (perhaps in the future) to say that he can be that type of a player, but I think the potential is there too

I would be ecstatic if he found a partner to be his "Daniel" so to speak and learned the cycle game from watching and practicing with the Sedins. I think he has the smarts to emulate it and the body to withstand the beating that comes with that style of play

Kenins has shown to work very well with Horvat, which is very impressive. He's also responsible for the "cycle" game that you see with that line. It's almost like the Sedins were on it.

[terrible.dee]

I was just about to post this myself,

It's nice when a legend like Larionov echoes the observations you've been making for years.

I've gone on and on about what I think has gone wrong fundamentally with the NHL on-ice product, and have been engaged in many a debate with those who would fight for the right to watch boring hockey.

Now I don't have to anymore,

With Igor's post and Bobby Orr's book, the fact that the NHL has some "Fine tuning" to do can really no longer be denied.

Entertainment, artistry and accountability should be the the three words the NHL uses to guide them into the future.

The good news is that Linden is already doing it, taking over the team he spoke first of "entertaining hockey" not "Win at all costs" (NJ) hockey. And sure enough this has been one of the more entertaining seasons I can remember,

[terrible.dee]

The style of the 80s Soviet teams is incredibly akin to the way the Sedins play. It's interesting, because I've always noticed how different hockey was in the 80s, but if you look to Europe, the style is much more similar to today's game, or at least, the best players of today's game.

This,

You nailed it.

Hockey in the 80's and early 90's was a totally different beast, at least in N.A. Much more creative, wild, emotionally driven game.

[Guest Dasein]

I thought Canada beat the Russians in 1972?

Larionov's was a great hockey player but his style represented one way of playing the game. It is not the only way.

Suggesting a north south game is non-productive and stifling ignores how important and viable a physical game can be. That game beat the Russians any number of times. For every Bobby Clarke there was a Reggie Leech. Which do you want? Of course I want both of them.

He's not suggesting that it's non-productive, nor is he saying that it's the only way

[Tiger-Hearted]

Larionov is one of the most highly intelligent people in the hockey world.

What a breath of fresh air to read a piece from someone who tells it like it is. There is nothing wrong with two-way hockey but the lack of creativity explains the lack of offence, therefore, destroying the game's entertainment value.

[RonMexico]

As what people say, it's easier to teach defense than offense and defense win games.

This is an overly simplistic, over-used football cliche. In hockey, the forwards and defence are on the ice at the same time so offense wins championships because you have to score to win the game.

While I find it justified, I hate seeing coaches that coach from a self-preservation point of view. So to increase offense, the league just starts pulling tricks out of their rear ends to help; which inevitably don't work because most coaches will pour over hours of video to exploit the weakness and ruin the latest change to improve offense.

There is no magic bullet to fix the lack of creativity that has been lost. It requires too many changes that will likely be viewed as regression rather than progression.

[nuck nit]

International rink size and officiating that fully implemented the existing rules of the game would stoke the creativity gene. Marginal skaters that must rely upon impeding the flow of the game and/or injuring the most gifted players has been the blight of the National Hockey League.

[sting]

What a refreshing piece from a brilliant and astute gentleman.

Hockey in North America has some very fundamental problems. It's truly sad to see coaching become so systematic and statistical that playing a safe road game limiting odd man rushes and discouraging agressive attacking play becomes the goal of most games. It works so why not right?

While i understand that winning is most important. It should be ethically wrong for coaches to do so at the expense of the game. Entertainment of the people that pay big money to watch should be at the forefront of every organization.

The NHL needs to improve its product. There are many simple adjustments that can be made to do so. Bettman is not being nearly pro active enough. The empty seats throughout the league is a sign that the entertainment is hardly of passing interest in many markets.

The truly heartbreaking part of this equation is that junior hockey and minor hockey are also becoming coached in a replica fashion of the NHL. All this is happening while the athlete's and skill is at an all-time high.

I'm encouraged to hear Igor's views. Can only hope that more respected players speak of the same so we can get hockey back to where it should be as the most exciting and entertaining sport in the world.

[*Buzzsaw*]

The reason we don't have the 'Red Army' style of play is all about the size of the ice surface.

Small rinks mean more advantages for the bigger, slower, more physical players, and less for the speedy, smaller ones.

The NHL could have gone for larger ice surfaces when all the new arenas were being built 10-15 years ago, but they were more concerned with cramming as many people into a building as possible, and reducing the costs of the buildings... so they compromised what could have been a great improvement to the game.

I don't agree there is no skill or creativity shown anymore, there definitely is... but it is much more difficult for talented players to show their skills.

[dank.sinatra]

Bigger ice plz

[Maniwaki Canuck]

Great read written by one of the best minds in the game. I'd love to see what Larionov could do running an NHL club. Why did we ever let this guy go as a player? With him in our 1994 run, maybe we would have taken it.

[etsen3]

While i understand that winning is most important. It should be ethically wrong for coaches to do so at the expense of the game. Entertainment of the people that pay big money to watch should be at the forefront of every organization.

How is unethical for coaches to teach sound fundamentals and good defensive play? Some would argue that winning is the most entertaining for the fans and in fact the fans are usually happy when the team wins.

The fact is, most rosters are mainly made up of guys that don't have the creativity to play the style of game he's talking about. If you want a skilled, creative team, you need skilled, creative players. Larionov played on basically an all-star team that had great chemistry because they were constantly together. The teams that play entertaining styles have stacked rosters filled with stars. There are only so many of those in the league. So less talented teams have to rely on solid fundamentals and team play. This isn't the coaches' fault. They are just trying to maximize their talent.

The way to a creative game is not through strategy, but through identifying and assembling talented players and giving them room to use their instincts, much like what was done with the West Coast Express and Sedins.

[Tiger-Hearted]

How is unethical for coaches to teach sound fundamentals and good defensive play? Some would argue that winning is the most entertaining for the fans and in fact the fans are usually happy when the team wins.

The fact is, most rosters are mainly made up of guys that don't have the creativity to play the style of game he's talking about. If you want a skilled, creative team, you need skilled, creative players. Larionov played on basically an all-star team that had great chemistry because they were constantly together. The teams that play entertaining styles have stacked rosters filled with stars. There are only so many of those in the league. So less talented teams have to rely on solid fundamentals and team play. This isn't the coaches' fault. They are just trying to maximize their talent.

The way to a creative game is not through strategy, but through identifying and assembling talented players and giving them room to use their instincts, much like what was done with the West Coast Express and Sedins.

The problem with today's hockey is that skilled and creative players are being microcoached into playing "the right way", aka. defensively. Having defensively responsible players like Bo Horvat is great. But hockey needs more creative players like Sam Reinhart and William Nylander to provide offence for their respective teams and entertainment for the high cost of tickets.

It's one thing for forwards to play well without the puck but it's another to deny those skilled players their creativity. This is why we are seeing fewer and fewer 50-goal and 100-point players.

Another factor is the bias towards bigger players. Most skilled and creative players are 6' and under.

I would much prefer to watch a player of Martin St.Louis' calibre, regardless of his height, score 4 maybe 5 goals in a game than watch players big enough to be NFL linebackers battle it out in low scoring game that leads to the gimmicky shootout.

What's really sad and frustrating is many fans on message boards and in general buy into today's defensive hockey.

[terrible.dee]

International rink size and officiating that fully implemented the existing rules of the game would stoke the creativity gene. Marginal skaters that must rely upon impeding the flow of the game and/or injuring the most gifted players has been the blight of the National Hockey League.

No,

The neutral zone trap was born in Sweden on olympic sized rinks.

Calling hockey like other sports interfears with the flow of the game, floating point officiating had always been a unique and integral part of this sport.

A ref SHOULD be able to call a game differently in the third then he does in the first, I believe the micro-managing, one-size-fits-all philosophy is directly opposed to what makes hockey unique and entertaining. The game is over officiated, I totally agree with cracking down on neutral zone obstruction as they did post 05' lockout, but hockey has never been called like other sports, why does everyone want this standardized officiating?

Maybe some are to young to remember how great it was when the ref could get a feel for a game and call it organically. The overall entertainment value was far superior. Drama was allowed to unfold rather then be cut off at the pass.

[terrible.dee]

The problem with today's hockey is that skilled and creative players are being microcoached into playing "the right way", aka. defensively. Having defensively responsible players like Bo Horvat is great. But hockey needs more creative players like Sam Reinhart and William Nylander to provide offence for their respective teams and entertainment for the high cost of tickets.

It's one thing for forwards to play well without the puck but it's another to deny those skilled players their creativity. This is why we are seeing fewer and fewer 50-goal and 100-point players.

Another factor is the bias towards bigger players. Most skilled and creative players are 6' and under.

I would much prefer to watch a player of Martin St.Louis' calibre, regardless of his height, score 4 maybe 5 goals in a game than watch players big enough to be NFL linebackers battle it out in low scoring game that leads to the gimmicky shootout.

What's really sad and frustrating is many fans on message boards and in general buy into today's defensive hockey.

I know,

it's so strange to hear people arguing against their own interests,

It shows you power of media, and how opinion is so easily influenced, if the same talking heads were going off about making the game more entertaining they would probably hold that opinion as well.

[thema]

Great read written by one of the best minds in the game. I'd love to see what Larionov could do running an NHL club. Why did we ever let this guy go as a player? With him in our 1994 run, maybe we would have taken it.

It was on a point of principle. Had we have re-signed Igor we would have been obligated to give the Soviet Ice Hockey federation $200,000 (IIRC) which was something he wouldn't stand for since he was well fed up with that crowd. The loophole was that he could sign with any other team and they wouldn't have to pay the fee. So he went to San Jose. Pity really he was arguably the most talented player ever to wear a Canucks jersey...

[Hugor Hill]

Guys like Darryl Sutter and Claude Julien would want to piss on this article.