sibiriak

This one's name is longer by 4 letters

I want to see that van Pott... kid to play just to see how they fit his name on the back of a jersey

Stereotype much?

If a young player is not under KHL contract or if he is an RFA by KHL rules, he can go to any other (foreign) league. The rule Fetisov proposed was aimed at more parity within the KHL, so that a few big clubs don't get all the top talent. I am not sure how practical it is for a young player in Russia to not to be under a KHL contract, but it is not much more practical than for a 18 yr old in North America. Although here, there is college route, if you don't turn pro at 18, and there isn't that route in Russia. Also, folks over here tend to forget that the KHL is not an exclusively Russian league. There are several teams from other countries, even ones outside former Eastern bloc. So no Russian Federation law can govern all of the KHL players.

No, he didn't say that. He said that all players, foreign or domestic should be subject to RFA rules before they are 27, so, and I quote, "Rich clubs can't buy up all the best players." He refers here to so called "oligarkh" clubs: SKA St Petersburg, Avangard Omsk, Ak Bars Kazan and some others. The letters NHL never crossed his lips in this interview.

Guys, please save your indignation. I just listened to Fetisov interview where he allegedly said what you are all railing about. Well, he didn't. He said that KHL needs Russian Labor laws amended, so they can introduce RFA status for younger players (up tp 27 years old), like the NHL does. As law stands now, any Russian player (or any other employee) can break his contract and effectively become a UFA on their own initiative and with 2 weeks notice, I am not Fetisov's greatest fan, he said and did a few things I disadree with since he left for Russia, but this time. he is not guilty of what he is accused of..

Wasn't that for traumatic head injury research? The kind of injury he had?

Actually I am saying that we don't have enough information to say which style of play was superior in the 70s and 80s. There were too few "best vs best" or even "average vs average" matchups between Canadian/NHL and Soviet teams. So I can't draw any evidence-based conclusions. Therefore we are left with personal taste, I enjoyed the CSKA and Soviet National team brand of hockey more than the NA version, but that is just an aesthetic preference and not a basis for awarding superiority. Just like some men preferring blonds and some preferring brunettes doesn't make one superior to the other.

Not really. First, one needs to take into account the fact that Olympics and Sr World Championships before 1990s featured all the top Soviet (half of whom were drafted into the CSKA team and so had an advantage in team chemistry because they played together a lot) and Czech players playing against the NA teams featuring only players free from playoffs, so probably missing at least half of their top players. (This also applies to Sweden and Finland to a lesser degree.) So results of those are not representative. The Soviet club teams that would tour NA over Christmas seasons were always the top 4 in the domestic league, and often were reinforced by top players from other Soviet club teams specifically for those games. Even so, only CSKA had a consistent winning record against NHL teams. Dinamo, Soviet Wings, Spartak, and Khimik had losing records. IIRC, the junior record is about 50/50 between Soviet Union and Canada, and here again Canada was often missing their best young players due to their being busy in the NHL. So, no I don't think Soviet style was superior. The elite 20 guys could execute those beautiful drop passes and circle back in the neutral ice to keep puck control. But if your average Soviet club team tried that, a more likely result would have been a turnover and an odd man rush against. In fact, apart from 4 top clubs in the USSR (who assembled all the country's top players), all other Soviet club teams tended to play counterattacking defensive style, because they couldn't compete with the top clubs in run and gun. My hometown team Sibir Novosibirsk played two game back-to-back home series against 4 top Moscow teams in (IIRC) 1975. They compiled a 3-5 record, the pattern being they would win the first of the back-to back games by circling the wagons in their own zone and hoping for a lucky break on a counter. Then the visiting team would figure them out and a double digit shellacking would follow. So a typical score was 3-2 win in the first game followed by a 12-2 loss in the second.

Except for maybe 3-4 top lines (20 top players in USSR) on few top Soviet teams, other Soviet players couldn't produce the same artistry on ice, due to lack of overwhelming skill. Yes, the overall style was a bit more E-W in Russia and N-S in NA, but neither proved obviously superior or even more entertaining, IMO. Igor is simply being nostalgic. I share his fond memories of what top Russian players could do (somewhat helped by the fact that apart from 87 Canada Cup finals, they usually met inferior opponents). I just don't think it is possible to recreate this now without assembling top players on one team and have them play many games together and practice even more. In other words, by recreating the same Red Army system that Larionov, Fetisov and Co. hate so much.

I don't want to ruin a perfectly good argument, but ... Rafalski ...

Some foreign players may leave, but there aren't many foreign superstars in KHL. And they will have to play out the remaining time on their contracts, as NHL and KHL agreed to respect each others contracts. I would bet that Kovalchuks and Radulovs will still get paid.

Of the 4 teams in financial trouble mentioned in the article, 3 are NOT based in Russia. The Russian government certainly does not give them any money. Player contracts in the KHL are set in rubles or other national currencies (lats for Riga, tenge for Barys, etc.), so the teams do not have to pay more to the players, as the ruble depreciates. So far, no team lost a sponsor due to recent crisis. So the rumors of KHL's demise are grossly exaggerated. That is not to say that a prolonged economic crisis in Russia would not adversely affect all areas of life, sports included. Just don't expect that the Russian top hockey league will fold. It has survived far worse crises in 1990s and in 2008-9.

Please, while I in no way condone what Voynov appears to have done, his victim will be fine. Heatley KILLED somebody. Intentionally or not. See the difference?

I don't know for sure, but I'd be astonished if a standard NHL contract didn't contain a "morals" clause. When Mike Danton went to prison, his contract with the Blues was terminated, IIRC.

I am Russian, so I'm sorry to see this happen to one of my countrymen. But I think the NHL handled this fairly. They are putting on an entertainment product, and Voynov's presence would be detrimental to selling their product to the public. So they removed him. It's a no-brainer business decision. He is being paid, so they are fullfilling their contractual obligations to him. If he is proven innocent, he goes back on the ice. If not, his contract gets voided. Its fair.

And where are all of those young players? After they age out of junior, very few get a regular spot in a KHL team's line-up. Even if they make the roster of a KHL team, they ride the pine and play 5 min a night. There's no place for the 19-21 year olds to play at high level and to develop. And even for those high end prospects, the quality of their hockey education is nowhere near what it used to be 20-25 years ago. If you look at the standout Russian juniors over the last 5 years, I can count the number of them regularly playing in KHL or NHL without having to take my shoes off.

That is true. Fewer and fewer top players emerge in Russia. But so far, KHL teams are compensating by buying up foreign talent. Many KHL teams top lines are totally non-Russian, or have 1 Russian guy. When the money runs out, that will no longer be an option. So in 10 years or less, Russian national team will be hard pressed to find enough good Russian players to beat teams like Germany or Slovenia.

No doubt, one would rather live in Sweden than in Russia, all other things equal, but what has that to do with the relative strength of hockey leagues? After all, Brazil is not a top place to live either, but that doesn't seem to diminish their strength in soccer any. As to KHL being an artificial league, that is definitely true in the financial sense, they don't earn nearly enough to cover their costs, but as long as the state or quasi-state sponsors money pours in, the quality of players assembled there is second only to the NHL, IMO. That can't last in the long run, of course. Sooner or later the KHL financial bubble will burst. But until then, they are a very strong league. The top 3 to 6 KHL teams may be competitive in the NHL. Some of them may even make the playoffs

What's the second best league in the world, in your opinion? Swedish?

If the NHLPA wanted a work stoppage, they could strike. Lockout is, by definition, owners locking the players out. Disclaimer: I do not wish to start any discussion of whose fault it was/is/will be. Just a word usage note.

I saw both play, and regardless of the stats, I can always expect to be wowed by something Pavel will do on the ice. Be it a deke, a pass, a hit avoided, a steal, something. Not so much for Fedorov. He might score 4 points, but they will be somewhat boring, just a guy who is stronger, shoots harder, and skates faster overcoming the inferior competition. Kind of like watching a adult play with kids, almost.

Sochi Leopards? That's as far from Siberia as you can get and still be in Russia. Geography, it's not just for kids anymore. :0

Come on, if you play forward, you can either play safe, not go for 40-60 pucks, be in front of your check always, or you can take more chances. In the former case, your +/- will be better, but your offense will suffer. In the latter case, your scoring will be higher, but your +/- will suffer even more. The reason that risky defensive play hurts the +/- more than helps it, is that only in a small minority of scoring chances the puck actually goes in. So if you screw up defensively by cherry picking or trying for a low percentage interception, you may get a scoring chance say 10% of the time, and you will score on 5% of those, your scoring goes up 0.5%. But 90% of the time your screw up results in a scoring chance against, and if the opposition scores on 5% of them, your +/- goes down by 4.5%. That is not intended as a mathematical proof but rather as an illustration of my point. Having said that, OV's play on that goal was revolting. I hate playing pick-up hockey because a lot of people play like that.

After he went to play for Florida, yes, pretty much. They weren't a threat to make the playoffs, so Bure got his 50-60 goals a year, having nothing else to play for. When he was in Vancouver in the beginning of his career, he was a bit more of a complete player. Not a Selke candidate even then, though