Malkin in '06 WJC = Gretzky in '81 Canada Cup

Each dominated the tourney until the Canadian-Russian final, then each was SHUTDOWN in that game.

1981 Canada Cup for Gretzky.
2006 World Junior Championships for Malkin.

An interesting parallel that undermines any attempt to say Malkin's lack of production is an indication of his talent or future success.

Um...I guess..maybe...but don't you think that being shutdown in the Canada Cup is a different can of worms than being shutdown in the WJHC? When Gretzky was in the WJHC he got 17 points in 6 games :dunno:

I think Malkin's lack of production in this game (and overall abysmal play, to be honest) just means that he has to mature emotionally/mentally before he will be a premiere player in the world. That's not a knock on him really, since he is only 19 years old.

I agree , Gretzky got his part of critics and people were saying he wasen't a winner . But like McGuillicuddy says both situations are kinda different , Greztsky already had a 130+pts season under his belt , but in a way they are kinda similar too .

Each dominated the tourney until the Canadian-Russian final, then each was SHUTDOWN in that game.

1981 Canada Cup for Gretzky.
2006 World Junior Championships for Malkin.

An interesting parallel that undermines any attempt to say Malkin's lack of production is an indication of his talent or future success.

This is really grasping at straws. I don't see too many people saying Malkin won't have NHL success and those that may be thinking that are out to lunch. But comparing Malkin to the greatest hockey player ever in different tournaments and different decades is weak at best.

You can't look at Gretzkys point totals in the WJHC either because if you put Malkin in a Delorean and shot him back to the 70s, Malkin could easily get those kind of numbers against the weaker competition of the past.

I don't think that Van is comparing Malkin to Gretzky just the feeling of the best player of the tourny getting trounced in the championship. He's saying that the shine of some great play might get overlooked because of the end result.

I don't think that Van is comparing Malkin to Gretzky just the feeling of the best player of the tourny getting trounced in the championship. He's saying that the shine of some great play might get overlooked because of the end result.

i think he's also saying that **** happens, and one bad game doesnt dictate an entire careers performance

You can't look at Gretzkys point totals in the WJHC either because if you put Malkin in a Delorean and shot him back to the 70s, Malkin could easily get those kind of numbers against the weaker competition of the past.

I beg to differ.

If you put an 18 year old Gretzky in the same Delorean and brought him into today's hockey, you'd never hear a word about Malkin or Ovechkin again.

If Malkin can't come up big against this Canadian team, nobody has any business saying he'd dominate teams in the 70's and 80's.

think he's also saying that **** happens, and one bad game doesnt dictate an entire careers performance
Bingo! (though i meant what poster #66 said too)

Guys like this McGuillicuddy is EXACTLY why I made this thread.
I think Malkin's lack of production in this game (and overall abysmal play, to be honest) just means that he has to mature emotionally/mentally...

His (non)performance in one game, even the final of an important international tourney, means SQUAT.

I beg to differ.

If you put an 18 year old Gretzky in the same Delorean and brought him into today's hockey, you'd never hear a word about Malkin or Ovechkin again.

If Malkin can't come up big against this Canadian team, nobody has any business saying he'd dominate teams in the 70's and 80's.

Junior teams of the 70's and 80's?????? This Canadian team (or Malkin for that matter) would kill the competition back then. Sure, there were players back then that would absolutely dominate today, but the level of play back then is far below what we see today - especially when you get into the 70's.

If Malkin is, in fact, in the same ballpark as Ovechkin/Crosby...Malkin would be very dominant if he played in the 70's or '80s NHL.

Junior teams of the 70's and 80's?????? This Canadian team (or Malkin for that matter) would kill the competition back then. Sure, there were players back then that would absolutely dominate today, but the level of play back then is far below what we see today - especially when you get into the 70's.

I can't really speak for the junior teams of the early 80's & 70's as what I did watch back then was strictly the pro's, but I felt the poster implied Malkin could go back and get Gretzky like numbers in the pro's as well and I don't believe that. If we are strictly talking junior I take back my comment. However, I firmly believe if you put a 19 year old Gretzky on this Russian junior team instead of Malkin, the Russians win. There is a huge difference between putting up big numbers and making everyone around you better.


If Malkin is, in fact, in the same ballpark as Ovechkin/Crosby...Malkin would be very dominant if he played in the 70's or '80s NHL.

Likely true.

I felt the poster implied Malkin could go back and get Gretzky like numbers in the pro's as well and I don't believe that...
you better get that feeling checked... it ain't right.

the parallel was clear... just because the hot young player in the tourney does nothing in the final, doesn't mean anything regarding his future career prospects (even though some would like to hold the canada-russia final against Malkin's potential/ability/talent assessment level)

just as..... Gretzky did nothing in the canada-russia final even though the 20 year old was phenomenal in earlier games that tourney

so did.... Malkin do nothing in the canada-russia even though the near-20 year old was phenomenal in earlier games in this tourney

that's the parallel !!!!!!

and did the nonperformance in the final prove at all relevant to Gretzky's career potential or success int he future big games.... NO

and so the nonperformance in the final DOESN'T prove relevant to Malkin's career potential or success in the future big games

You can't look at Gretzkys point totals in the WJHC either because if you put Malkin in a Delorean and shot him back to the 70s, Malkin could easily get those kind of numbers against the weaker competition of the past.

Maybe, but where will you find 1.21 Jigawatts? A power source of that magnitude doesnt exist...

just as..... Gretzky did nothing in the canada-russia final even though the 20 year old was phenomenal in earlier games that tourney

so did.... Malkin do nothing in the canada-russia even though the near-20 year old was phenomenal in earlier games in this tourney

that's the parallel !!!!!!


Clearly it would be folly to make many assumptions based on one game.

However, not showing up big in the Canada Cup final at 20 vs not showing up big in a junior game at 19 are night and day. The Russians had one of the best hockey teams ever that year.

Malkin was supposed to dominate these younger guys and just plain didn't. He may still come in and dominate the NHL but the fact that Staal/Bourdon/etc shut him down has to be a little concerning for those claiming him to be as good or better then Crosby/Ovechkin.

Guys like this McGuillicuddy is EXACTLY why I made this thread.

His (non)performance in one game, even the final of an important international tourney, means SQUAT.

Yeah, well guys like this McGuillicuddy are right. Mature world-class players bring it when everything is on the line. The great ones do it again and again, so it can't just be luck. The fact that Malkin had an absolute stinker in what I think we can assume to be one of the biggest games of his life so far indicates that, as a hockey player, he has to grow mentally. How can you possibly dispute that?

Now you say that "he just had an off night" or maybe "just had one bad game". But that's EXACTLY my point! With more maturity those games don't happen when his team needs him most.

And seriously, do you mean to tell me that you don't agree with my statement that Malkin "has to mature emotionally/mentally before he will be a premiere player in the world."?! Let me be clear, I like Malkin as a player. I hope he comes to the NHL and plays to the same level as the super-rookies before him. But if he had come out and scored 4 goals last night you'd be saying how this shows that he is a clutch player and is the second coming of Jesus Christ. So when he comes out and has a total stinker, you can't just say it means "SQUAT" just to make yourself feel better.

However, not showing up big in the Canada Cup final at 20 vs not showing up big in a junior game at 19 are night and day. The Russians had one of the best hockey teams ever that year.
And Canada had one of the most talented rosters ever too: Gretzky played with Mike Bossy, Guy Lafleur, Marcel Dionne, Bryan Trottier, Bob Gainey, Denis Potvin, Ray Bourque, Larry Robinson... arguably 9 of the Top-50 players ever!!!

not as different as "night and day"

the parallel isn't meant to indicate a perfect equation, analogies are only useful so far,... but the canadian team was supposed to win in 1981 and was demolished int he final... just as the russians were expected to do much better than the canadians in this tourney... the parallel here is close.... though by no means was this my point!

I would also add, that Gretzky's performance in 1980 showed that he had to mature as a player as well. I think he may even have said so himself at some point.

Yeah, well guys like this McGuillicuddy are right. Mature world-class players bring it when everything is on the line. The great ones do it again and again, so it can't just be luck. The fact that Malkin had an absolute stinker in what I think we can assume to be one of the biggest games of his life so far indicates that, as a hockey player, he has to grow mentally. How can you possibly dispute that?
i don't dispute it if you would have said the same thing about gretzky in the VERY important Canada Cup in 1981.

i saw the 1981 game and an opinion like yours - about the significance of "an absolute stinker" in the final to the future of a great player - was laughable.

this thread is meant to show that history could well repeat itself,... and that precedent doesn't support the silly idea that Malkin's nonscoring in the final means something.

i don't dispute it if you would have said the same thing about gretzky in the VERY important Canada Cup in 1981.


See above. I just barely beat you to it :)

(although I meant to type 1981, not 1980)

I would also add, that Gretzky's performance in 1980 showed that he had to mature as a player as well. I think he may even have said so himself at some point.
so... the game doesn't count against Malkin then, just his age?

okay, we don't disagree then.

but there are some yahoos out there who have been saying that Malkin should be looked at in a LESSER light simply because of his lack of production in the final of this tourney.

utter nonsense, don't you agree?

so... the game doesn't count against Malkin then, just his age?

okay, we don't disagree then.

but there are some yahoos out there who have been saying that Malkin should be looked at in a LESSER light simply because of his lack of production in the final of this tourney.

utter nonsense, don't you agree?

Aye, in the end I think we do agree. This one game tells us a little bit about where Malkin is right now as a player, but nothing really about his future/potential. Ovechkin wasn't brilliant in last year's final (well, the part of it that he played), and Crosby wasn't even the best player on his team, but look at them go now! Hands up those among us who would take Patrice Bergeron over Sidney Crosby now because Bergeron was better in last year's WJHC......no, I didn't think I'd see any :).

Malkin was supposed to dominate these younger guys and just plain didn't. He may still come in and dominate the NHL but the fact that Staal/Bourdon/etc shut him down has to be a little concerning for those claiming him to be as good or better then Crosby/Ovechkin.

What were you expecting him to do? -- score on every shift? :dunno:
Apart from the last game, Malkin did dominate - and big time.

Malkin, Ovechkin, Crosby, etc. are the future of the game, but they're not supermen. Ovechkin was shut down (and injured) in the finals last year; Crosby was shut down in last year's memorial cup (a level below the WJC). Heck, even guys like Spezza and Heatley only had 5 and 4 points in their respective final WJC's.

What were you expecting him to do? -- score on every shift? :dunno:

No, but I expected him to score or assist on at least one shift in one of the bigger games in his career. :dunno:

Each dominated the tourney until the Canadian-Russian final, then each was SHUTDOWN in that game.

1981 Canada Cup for Gretzky.
2006 World Junior Championships for Malkin.

An interesting parallel that undermines any attempt to say Malkin's lack of production is an indication of his talent or future success.

Yeah, I was going to dig that one up myself if anyone pressed it.
Poor Malkin....now he gets to play in the Olympics. Some would say its a chance at redemption, but with the defensive game the Russian senior mens team is likely going to have, I think its more likely to be more of the same. Oh well, there the pressure can be on the older players.

Each dominated the tourney until the Canadian-Russian final, then each was SHUTDOWN in that game.

1981 Canada Cup for Gretzky.
2006 World Junior Championships for Malkin.

An interesting parallel that undermines any attempt to say Malkin's lack of production is an indication of his talent or future success.

?? This doesn't really undermine anything. If Malkin comes up blank in the gold medal game of the Olympics then there is some parrallel. Canada Cup in no way equals WJC. Completely different level of competition.

No, but I expected him to score or assist on at least one shift in one of the bigger games in his career. :dunno:

Because Malkin didn't get a point he shouldn't be considered alongside Crosby or Ovechkin....particularly in light of those 2 guys being shut down in big games also?

Because Malkin didn't get a point he shouldn't be considered alongside Crosby or Ovechkin....particularly in light of those 2 guys being shut down in big games also?
exactly.

the great (young) one(s) haven't scored anything in HUGE international tourney finals...

the analogies multiply....

the point: the final in this one international tourney is NO indication of Malkin's ability/talent/potential

none thomasincanada, none

Because Malkin didn't get a point he shouldn't be considered alongside Crosby or Ovechkin....particularly in light of those 2 guys being shut down in big games also?

Ovechkin was unable to deliver against the best Canadian World Junior Team ever, full of players his own age and some older. I can hardly hold that against him.

Crosby was unable to deliver against possibly the best CHL team ever, full of players older than him, 4 of whom have seen some NHL ice time this year with probably 2 or 3 more to join next year. I don't believe *any* of Crosby's Rimouski teammates have seen NHL ice time this year.

Malkin was unable to deliver against a blue collar Canadian team full of players younger and less talented than him.

It would be lame to judge a guy based on one game, but at some point he's going to have to step up and be the best player in a game he is supposed to.

Still the best prospect in the world. :)

Wow, if this isn't overrating Malkin then I don't know what is.

My comment? If not Malkin, than who?

Not to push the issue, but I just can't seem to understand why you're judging a 19 year old based on 1 or 2 big games.

Ovechkin was unable to deliver against the best Canadian World Junior Team ever, full of players his own age and some older. I can hardly hold that against him.

Who was older than Ovechkin? He was an '85 and in his last WJC. And who cares if they're the best team Canada had ever -- they were still a junior team. You'd think, considering what he's doing against the best players in the world, he would have ripped apart any junior team, no matter how good they were.
But no, things like this happen to the best of them.

Crosby was unable to deliver against possibly the best CHL team ever, full of players older than him, 4 of whom have seen some NHL ice time this year with probably 2 or 3 more to join next year. I don't believe *any* of Crosby's Rimouski teammates have seen NHL ice time this year.

Who cares. It's still not even close to WJC level. That London team only had 5 players that were good enough to ever play in a WJC. Don't make excuses, Crosby was certainly NHL level last year but was still blanked by a sub-WJC, CHL junior level team in one of the biggest games of his career up to that point.

It would be lame to judge a guy based on one game, but at some point he's going to have to step up and be the best player in a game he is supposed to.

You sound like you think Malkin is 28 or something. Learning what it takes to win is part of the development process as much as anything. It comes from experience and being on both the winning & losing sides. That's what Crosby and Ovechkin are still learning right now too.

exactly.

the point: the final in this one international tourney is NO indication of Malkin's ability/talent/potential

none thomasincanada, none

Think what you want, that doesn't make it so. It means little, for sure, but it *does* mean something. His career will be judged in the end not on how he does in meaningless regular season NHL/RSL games, but what he does in the NHL playoffs/Olympics and the other big games such as this one. This one game will likely mean very little at the end of his career, but it does not mean nothing.

What does mean nothing are the stats he put up against the very weak WJC competition this year apart from Canada.

Gretzky was a 20 year old, playing against men.

Malkin was a 19 year old, playing against opposition between the ages of 17-19. Bit of a difference.

There's an obvious parallel, but I have to ask...if Malkin had scored 5 goals yesterday, would your thread topic today have been about how his WJHC success was a harbinger for future superstardom?

Not to push the issue, but I just can't seem to understand why you're judging a 19 year old based on 1 or 2 big games.

I'm challenging the assertion that this game means absolutely nothing. I truly don't believe that. We're dealing with a player who has plenty of RSL experience, and is apparently kicking butt in it. Is it not fair for me to expect him to step it up in a game like this, regardless of the fact that he is still quite young? You can't cherry pick games to judge this guy on. All games count and the big ones more than the little ones IMO.



Who was older than Ovechkin? He was an '85 and in his last WJC. And who cares if they're the best team Canada had ever -- they were still a junior team.

Most of Team Canada was older than him - as they were 2003 draft picks. The age difference wasn't huge, but it was there.



Who cares. It's still not even close to WJC level. That London team only had 5 players that were good enough to ever play in a WJC. Don't make excuses, Crosby was certainly NHL level last year but was still blanked by a sub-WJC, CHL junior level team in one of the biggest games of his career up to that point.

Crosby was all of 17, but you'll never hear me say that game was meaningless.

If you put an 18 year old Gretzky in the same Delorean and brought him into today's hockey, you'd never hear a word about Malkin or Ovechkin again.


Gretzky didn't have to skills to compete in todays NHL when the goalies didn't just fall over when a snap shot was taking from the hash marks.

Gretzky didn't have to skills to compete in todays NHL when the goalies didn't just fall over when a snap shot was taking from the hash marks.

That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.

Thanks for the laugh :clap:

Gretzky didn't have to skills to compete in todays NHL when the goalies didn't just fall over when a snap shot was taking from the hash marks.
Lots of comedy from the bitter Russian supporters today. That's bud! :biglaugh:

I'm challenging the assertion that this game means absolutely nothing. I truly don't believe that. We're dealing with a player who has plenty of RSL experience, and is apparently kicking butt in it. Is it not fair for me to expect him to step it up in a game like this, regardless of the fact that he is still quite young? You can't cherry pick games to judge this guy on. All games count and the big ones more than the little ones IMO.

I'm not saying it's a meaningless game, not by any stretch of the imagination. But it shouldn't define Malkin as a player, how good he'll be, or how he compares to others. You obviously have doubts based on his play in 1 'big' game, but at this stage, you look at what the player does over the big picture. I gave examples of Crosby and Ovechkin coming up empty in big games but you tried to make excuses for them. Those games had no bearing on how good those guys really are/were. You can't have it both ways.

I'm not saying it's a meaningless game, not by any stretch of the imagination. But it shouldn't define Malkin as a player, how good he'll be, or how he compares to others. You obviously have doubts based on his play in 1 'big' game, but at this stage, you look at what the player does over the big picture. I gave examples of Crosby and Ovechkin coming up empty in big games but you tried to make excuses for them. Those games had no bearing on how good those guys really are/were. You can't have it both ways.

I don't really have many doubts on his potential & skillset, and one game certainly means little. I thought it meant a little more than Crosby & Ovechkin's games that they didn't show up in just based on the relative level of competition, which is why I defended them earlier, but their games were also statements that they weren't quite superstars yet, either.

I was quite vocal in this thread because I didn't like the assertion that this game was meaningless and the making of excuses, but that doesn't mean I have major doubts about his game, that is far from the case.

That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.

Thanks for the laugh :clap:

stats dont tell the whole story

Gretzky didn't have to skills to compete in todays NHL when the goalies didn't just fall over when a snap shot was taking from the hash marks.

.....

Wow.

I don't even know what to say to this.

.....

Wow.

I don't even know what to say to this.

Just smile and nod...

:snide:

Gretzky didn't have to skills to compete in todays NHL when the goalies didn't just fall over when a snap shot was taking from the hash marks.

How old are you? 12?

Obviously, you haven't been around too long...

Gretzky was a 20 year old, playing against men.

Malkin was a 19 year old, playing against opposition between the ages of 17-19. Bit of a difference.



GIMME A BREAK!!!!

Clearly, there is a difference.

Gretzky was 16, YES 16 YEARS old when he scored 17 points in 6 games in against 18 and 19 year olds at his WJC.

Malkin is 19, playing against 17-19 year olds at this WJC.

Even as a grown men, Gretzky had games where he didn't register a point...just ask Stephan the Shadow Lebeau. So what? Gretzky still scored over 200 points a season in the best league in the world.

Malkin is not worthy enough to even hold on to Wayne's jockstraps!!!

This thread is completely out to lunch...trying to compare apples to oranges using some crazy logic... Eeesheesh!!!

Malkin was great and all, likely the best forward of the tournament, but I still think he was far from dominating like I'm guessing Gretzky was in 1981. I'm 19 and I've seen better performances from a handful of forwards at other WJCs. (not saying that has anything to do with overall pro potential)

GIMME A BREAK!!!!

Clearly, there is a difference.

Gretzky was 16, YES 16 YEARS old when he scored 17 points in 6 games in against 18 and 19 year olds at his WJC.

Malkin is 19, playing against 17-19 year olds at this WJC.

Even as a grown men, Gretzky had games where he didn't register a point...just ask Stephan the Shadow Lebeau. So what? Gretzky still scored over 200 points a season in the best league in the world.

Malkin is not worthy enough to even hold on to Wayne's jockstraps!!!

This thread is completely out to lunch...trying to compare apples to oranges using some crazy logic... Eeesheesh!!!

I didn't realize I was talking about Gretzky at the WJHC, I could've sworn I was referring to Gretzky at the '81 Canada cup (where he was 20, YES 20 years old), which the thread starter was talking about.

Whatever, carry on. :thumbu:

I didn't realize I was talking about Gretzky at the WJHC, I could've sworn I was referring to Gretzky at the '81 Canada cup (where he was 20, YES 20 years old), which the thread starter was talking about.

Whatever, carry on. :thumbu:

If there's one way to get a Canadian to wig out, it's to mention someone's as good as Gretzky.

It's sacrilege I tell ya!!!! Sacrilege!!! :razz:

I didn't realize I was talking about Gretzky at the WJHC, I could've sworn I was referring to Gretzky at the '81 Canada cup (where he was 20, YES 20 years old), which the thread starter was talking about.

Whatever, carry on. :thumbu:

That CAPITALIZED gimme a break was not intended for you. It was to the original poster and his title...as well as some of the others who are out to lunch with him.

Carry on. :thumbu:

Gretzky didn't have to skills to compete in todays NHL when the goalies didn't just fall over when a snap shot was taking from the hash marks.

Hall of Fame material right here ladies and gentlemen. Pathetic.

If there's one way to get a Canadian to wig out, it's to mention someone's as good as Gretzky.

It's sacrilege I tell ya!!!! Sacrilege!!! :razz:

Or Bobby Orr!

It's sacrilege I tell ya!!!! Sacrilege!!! and in your case Joey Mullen? ...or would that be Jeremy Roenick? :razz:

Hall of Fame material right here ladies and gentlemen. Pathetic.

You all know it's true as much as it pains you to accept. The goaltending and D was so piss poor back then that his skill level just wouldn't translate to similar numbers in this new (albiet "high scoring" era.

You all know it's true as much as it pains you to accept. The goaltending and D was so piss poor back then that his skill level just wouldn't translate to similar numbers in this new (albiet "high scoring" era.

There is a world of difference between :

a)Gretzky's points wouldn't translate to the new era

and

b)claiming that this somehow means that Malkin is somehow comparable to Gretzky.

Or Bobby Orr!

It's sacrilege I tell ya!!!! Sacrilege!!! and in your case Joey Mullen? ...or would that be Jeremy Roenick? :razz:

Well, not quite......but nobody can talk smack like Roenick. NOBODY! :D

You all know it's true as much as it pains you to accept. The goaltending and D was so piss poor back then that his skill level just wouldn't translate to similar numbers in this new (albiet "high scoring" era.

Dude, take a breath, think about all that you've said. It hurts to have your team lose. I remember how I felt after the Yanks snuck one by us two years ago.

But this "Gretzky's not so good" or "Malkin = Gretzky" stuff? Why that's just crazy talk. Take a long bath -- dream about the Olympics (Ovechkin, Malkin, Kovachuk, Datsyuk, etc...). See, there's always another game.

That's why we shake hands at the end.

Gretzky didn't have to skills to compete in todays NHL when the goalies didn't just fall over when a snap shot was taking from the hash marks.

Do you realize that Wayne played in the defensive era, where there was about 5.3-5.4 goals a game, and he was fourth in the league in scoring? When he was nearly 40? On a bad team?

That CAPITALIZED gimme a break was not intended for you. It was to the original poster and his title...as well as some of the others who are out to lunch with him.

Carry on. :thumbu:

So then why quote me?

Hell, I agree with most of what you said...

Just another 'Fear and Loathing' day at Hfboards.

Do you realize that Wayne played in the defensive era, where there was about 5.3-5.4 goals a game, and he was fourth in the league in scoring? When he was nearly 40? On a bad team?
Thank you!!! :clap:.................. Any questions?

You all know it's true as much as it pains you to accept. The goaltending and D was so piss poor back then that his skill level just wouldn't translate to similar numbers in this new (albiet "high scoring" era.

What about Gretzky's numbers in the mid-to-late 90s, as an old man no less? That's proof enough.

Malkin didnt really dominate this tourny, after the round robyn he was tied with Kessel in points, not really dominating if you ask me

Dude, take a breath, think about all that you've said. It hurts to have your team lose. I remember how I felt after the Yanks snuck one by us two years ago.

But this "Gretzky's not so good" or "Malkin = Gretzky" stuff? Why that's just crazy talk. Take a long bath -- dream about the Olympics (Ovechkin, Malkin, Kovachuk, Datsyuk, etc...). See, there's always another game.

That's why we shake hands at the end.

I never once said Malkin would ever be as good as Gretzky. I doubt anyone ever will because Gretzkys numbers were a matter of absolute luck, his timing to enter the league was perfect.


and to the other who said he put up amazing numbers from the mid to late 90s....he put up Joe Sakic numbers in that period. If he was putting 120pt seasons up in the defensive era i'd be singing a different tune.

i still say that if you put a guy like rick nash or any modern day sniper back to the 80s when goalies would fall on their behinds at the sight of a puck, then they'd easily put up 90 goal seasons. early on in this very season simon gagne was on pace for a 90+ goal season so such numbers are not impossible, just not very likely as it requires more consistancy. his 120+pt seasons back then were good but look at the scoring chart right now, quite a few players are on pace for over 120pts and none of them are of the gretzky status.

and in regards to the 80s being a "defensive era", that still means nothing as gretzky was ahead of his time in terms of skill. if he was playing in this era he'd probably be up in the upper echelon of players, but not have any 200pt seasons or be breaking any goal scoring records.

in summar: gretzky's numbers were a matter of luck/fate, not an unmatched amount of skill



and to the guy who thinks i'm some disgrunted russian fan....what?? sure, i like the russians and I root for russia because i like more russian players than i do canadains, but it's not like i'm russian or anything. i'm from toronto and am just a fan of them, and that has no bearing on my views of gretzky. my favorite player is canadian (lemieux) and heck, i've rooted for team canada on plenty of occasions. just not this tournament. sheesh.

b)claiming that this somehow means that Malkin is somehow comparable to Gretzky.

the only comparable is that if you took someone of Malkin's modern day training and ability and put him back in Wayne's era, then Malkin would put up similar "untouchable" numbers

the only comparable is that if you took someone of Malkin's modern day training and ability and put him back in Wayne's era, then Malkin would put up similar "untouchable" numbers


We get it. You all in Russia love Malkin, I love the kid too. But these over the top assertions that you are all making only seve to diminish any reasonable praise of a guy that I for one am pretty excited about hopefully seeing in person next year. And it certainly invites him to be 'Crosby'd' when he arrives here. Keep it real and you will have most here agreeing with you. But most of what has been going on here has been so far over the top it makes the brain numb.

i still say that if you put a guy like rick nash or any modern day sniper back to the 80s when goalies would fall on their behinds at the sight of a puck, then they'd easily put up 90 goal seasons.

This is incredibly simplistic, IMO.

Have Rick Nash grow up in the 70's instead of the 90's, give him the skate and stick technology that was around in the 80's, and he *might* score 50-60.

There's myriad variables when it comes to comparing sports stars from different eras. This isn't a video game.

You all in Russia love Malkin

I'm 20 minutes outside of Toronto :dunno:

Each dominated the tourney until the Canadian-Russian final, then each was SHUTDOWN in that game.

1981 Canada Cup for Gretzky.
2006 World Junior Championships for Malkin.

An interesting parallel that undermines any attempt to say Malkin's lack of production is an indication of his talent or future success.

Not even close, I do not believe Malkin even "dominated" the tournment.

I'm 20 minutes outside of Toronto :dunno:

Does not change the point of my post.

I never once said Malkin would ever be as good as Gretzky.

the only comparable is that if you took someone of Malkin's modern day training and ability and put him back in Wayne's era, then Malkin would put up similar "untouchable" numbers

Uh huh.

1980 or 2005,Malkin can't carry Gretzky's jockstrap.

Friggin guy is a kid for God's sake and now he's better then Wayne?

This board slays me.the foolishness around here sometimes.

We're really making this a fantasy thread now eh.
Malkin has done nothing to substantiate a comparison to Gretzky. :shakehead

This is incredibly simplistic, IMO.

Have Rick Nash grow up in the 70's instead of the 90's, give him the skate and stick technology that was around in the 80's, and he *might* score 50-60.

There's myriad variables when it comes to comparing sports stars from different eras. This isn't a video game.

my assertion is that if gretzky grew up in this era, with all we have now, he would be top of the league good, kovalchuk/jagr/foppa good....but not legendary

that aside, i havn't slept in something like 48 hours and havn't eaten anything in 24....so maybe i'm not making my point as clear as i couold

my assertion is that if gretzky grew up in this era, with all we have now, he would be top of the league good, kovalchuk/jagr/foppa good....but not legendary

that aside, i havn't slept in something like 48 hours and havn't eaten anything in 24....so maybe i'm not making my point as clear as i couold

How in the world can you even theorize about something like that? :biglaugh:

Not as clear as you could? You're coming off like a complete idiot :biglaugh:

This is incredibly simplistic, IMO.

Have Rick Nash grow up in the 70's instead of the 90's, give him the skate and stick technology that was around in the 80's, and he *might* score 50-60.

There's myriad variables when it comes to comparing sports stars from different eras. This isn't a video game.

You'd also have to throw out modern training, nutrition, etc.
If you do that, though, it gets to be too hypothetical. It's really not the Rick Nash we know.
Nash would rip apart the competition of the '80s, but, as you said, it's not a good way to compare stars from different eras.

Uh huh.

then fine, malkin will be as good as gretzky in terms of skill. kovalchuk, jagr, heatley, crosby, ovechkin, etc. are all about as good as him too

the only thing separating these players from him is his fortunate timing

other than that, theres no comparison. malkin wont be the next gretzky, i'm not the one who originally stated it in this thread anyway. blahblah blah who cares

How in the world can you even theorize about somthing like that? :biglaugh:

Not as clear as you could? You're coming off like a complete idiot :biglaugh:

that's because there's only so much skill a player can have. there's no way gretzky could have been able to have some superhuman ability to get 5pts a night these days. the man was ahead of his time and that's all

that's because there's only so much skill a player can have. there's no way gretzky could have been able to have some superhuman ability to get 5pts a night these days. the man was ahead of his time and that's all

OK, I understand. Last night still really stings, you're in mourning and need sleep. Best be off now cuz you're getting real nutty.

my assertion is that if gretzky grew up in this era, with all we have now, he would be top of the league good, kovalchuk/jagr/foppa good....but not legendary

that aside, i havn't slept in something like 48 hours and havn't eaten anything in 24....so maybe i'm not making my point as clear as i couold

He would have been legendary, but not AS legendary.
Gretz would have been the best player in the league, but he wouldn't be outscoring the next highest point getter by 50+ points like he did in the '80s.

my assertion is that if gretzky grew up in this era, with all we have now, he would be top of the league good, kovalchuk/jagr/foppa good....but not legendary

You could be right, you could be wrong. Impossible to say for certain.

then fine, malkin will be as good as gretzky in terms of skill. kovalchuk, jagr, heatley, crosby, ovechkin, etc. are all about as good as him too

the only thing separating these players from him is his fortunate timing

other than that, theres no comparison. malkin wont be the next gretzky, i'm not the one who originally stated it in this thread anyway. blahblah blah who cares

Yah, well Gretzky is a putz compared to Frank McGee and Joe Malone -- now those were Malkin-worthy numbers!

:lol:

Comparing todays players versus yester-year's is a silly game and irrelevant in what is real today.

Malkin is a great young prospect. Until he is in the NHL and he has shown us what he can do, he will remain just another great prospect.

Try and stay with reality guys. :shakehead

:lol:

Comparing todays players versus yester-year's is a silly game and irrelevant in what is real today.

Malkin is a great young prospect. Until he is in the NHL and he has shown us what he can do, he will remain just another great prospect.

Try and stay with reality guys. :shakehead

I'm just saying if Gretzky had played with a rover on the outdoor ice against a team of gold miners from Dawson City would he have scored 14 goals? It's clear that Malkin would have done at least that (and Kessel would have assisted on all of them).

And how fair is it that McGee only had one eye? Why, if he had two eyes and his uncle hadn't been asassinated by Fenians, then the American ref might have gone upstairs in time for the video review and the CCCP would in fact have actually won the '72 series and Brian Lawton would be vindicated as an underappreciated first overall pick. (Oh, and the Leafs might have won the Cup).

It all seems pretty clear to me.

You all know it's true as much as it pains you to accept. The goaltending and D was so piss poor back then that his skill level just wouldn't translate to similar numbers in this new (albiet "high scoring" era.

Ya and i guess the great Valeri Kharlomov couldnt either because he played back in the crappy 70s . Montreals team in 76 was every bit as good as Red Army. Goalies had to accually have more skill because they didnt completely cover the net with pads. I have been very objective giving the russian teams their due. I have never read such poor sportsmanship that you and siberian have littered this thread with. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. And i guess that would make tretriak a pretty lousy goalie now also. Great players from all nationalities would be great no matter what period of time or league they play in. Next yr beat our boys by 5 goals and you wont need the excuses. Your acting like a 10 yr old kid.

Dude, take a breath, think about all that you've said. It hurts to have your team lose. I remember how I felt after the Yanks snuck one by us two years ago.

But this "Gretzky's not so good" or "Malkin = Gretzky" stuff? Why that's just crazy talk. Take a long bath -- dream about the Olympics (Ovechkin, Malkin, Kovachuk, Datsyuk, etc...). See, there's always another game.

That's why we shake hands at the end.

AMEN brother. The russians have one hell of a team they can ice for the olympics.
Lets hope if they dont get gold we dont get all this unnessessiary whining. I seen a few non calls in the USA game against russia and i havent read any excuses from the Americans. If this is NA vs Europe i would love to except that challenge. Our fans supported the russians over our southern brothers more for political reasons. I really dont think the American ref felt he owed us anything. Every year the USA gets harder and harder to beat so if you guys feel we are conspiring to beat the europeans it would be interesting to have a NA vs Europe tournament.

that's because there's only so much skill a player can have. there's no way gretzky could have been able to have some superhuman ability to get 5pts a night these days. the man was ahead of his time and that's all

Clearly you don't know who Wayne Gretzky is. Try going over to the history boards and doing some research.

He would have been legendary, but not AS legendary.
Gretz would have been the best player in the league, but he wouldn't be outscoring the next highest point getter by 50+ points like he did in the '80s.

Sorry but even YOU need to go over to the history boards and do some research on the Wayner. This topic has been covered more times than I can remember.

IMO, Malkin is quite overated. IMO, there are 5-10 RSL players better than him and quite a few Russian NHLers.....

In the two games I saw Russia play (the semifinal and final games) Malkin dominated and in particular against the Americans in the semis. He was so dangerous offensively and with that size... he's listed on some sites at 6'3" and 180 pounds, well he is much much bigger than that and I would think closer to 6'5" and maybe 220 pounds with a humongous wingspan. He is a sensational talent no question and should definitely be in the NHL right now however to compare him to Gretzky's performance... I think it's difficult and a little farfetch'd.

In the two games I saw Russia play (the semifinal and final games) Malkin dominated and in particular against the Americans in the semis. He was so dangerous offensively and with that size... he's listed on some sites at 6'3" and 180 pounds, well he is much much bigger than that and I would think closer to 6'5" and maybe 220 pounds with a humongous wingspan. He is a sensational talent no question and should definitely be in the NHL right now however to compare him to Gretzky's performance... I think it's difficult and a little farfetch'd.
This thread was NOT meant to compare the talent level of Malkin with the talent level of Gretzky.

An analogy is only supposed to be taken so far.

Those who think this thread is about trying to say Malkin is the next Gretz need to read more carefully.

Each dominated the tourney until the Canadian-Russian final, then each was SHUTDOWN in that game.

1981 Canada Cup for Gretzky.
2006 World Junior Championships for Malkin.

An interesting parallel that undermines any attempt to say Malkin's lack of production is an indication of his talent or future success.

..

just as..... Gretzky did nothing in the canada-russia final even though the 20 year old was phenomenal in earlier games that tourney

so did.... Malkin do nothing in the canada-russia even though the near-20 year old was phenomenal in earlier games in this tourney

that's the parallel !!!!!!

and did the nonperformance in the final prove at all relevant to Gretzky's career potential or success int he future big games.... NO

and so the nonperformance in the final DOESN'T prove relevant to Malkin's career potential or success in the future big games
...

You can't look at Gretzkys point totals in the WJHC either because if you put Malkin in a Delorean and shot him back to the 70s, Malkin could easily get those kind of numbers against the weaker competition of the past.

If Malkin played in the 70s, he would not have the advantages of having evolved into a 2000s hockey player. He would be shorter, smaller, slower and have the same equipment and coaching of any 70s player.

How would he have done then? Well, considering Gretzky was 16 when he led the tournament in scoring and Malkin is 19 and tied for 2nd, Gretzky was by far the better junior.

Gretzky didn't have to skills to compete in todays NHL when the goalies didn't just fall over when a snap shot was taking from the hash marks.

Let me guess, you are in the 16-24 demographic.

I never once said Malkin would ever be as good as Gretzky. I doubt anyone ever will because Gretzkys numbers were a matter of absolute luck, his timing to enter the league was perfect.


and to the other who said he put up amazing numbers from the mid to late 90s....he put up Joe Sakic numbers in that period. If he was putting 120pt seasons up in the defensive era i'd be singing a different tune.

i still say that if you put a guy like rick nash or any modern day sniper back to the 80s when goalies would fall on their behinds at the sight of a puck, then they'd easily put up 90 goal seasons. early on in this very season simon gagne was on pace for a 90+ goal season so such numbers are not impossible, just not very likely as it requires more consistancy. his 120+pt seasons back then were good but look at the scoring chart right now, quite a few players are on pace for over 120pts and none of them are of the gretzky status.

and in regards to the 80s being a "defensive era", that still means nothing as gretzky was ahead of his time in terms of skill. if he was playing in this era he'd probably be up in the upper echelon of players, but not have any 200pt seasons or be breaking any goal scoring records.

in summar: gretzky's numbers were a matter of luck/fate, not an unmatched amount of skill



and to the guy who thinks i'm some disgrunted russian fan....what?? sure, i like the russians and I root for russia because i like more russian players than i do canadains, but it's not like i'm russian or anything. i'm from toronto and am just a fan of them, and that has no bearing on my views of gretzky. my favorite player is canadian (lemieux) and heck, i've rooted for team canada on plenty of occasions. just not this tournament. sheesh.

Let me help you understand:

If Gretzky was in his prime during the 2003-04 season, he would have scored 140 points. The league leader was Martin St. Louis at 94.

Does that give you an idea of Gretzky's dominance? Of course he would not have hit 200 pts in the large goalie equipment, clutching and grabbing era. But, he would still have dominated the league and won scoring titles by a WIDE margin.

He would have been the best in any era.

IMO, Malkin is quite overated. IMO, there are 5-10 RSL players better than him and quite a few Russian NHLers.....Please, wouldn't you mind to provide me with the 5-10 RSL players that are better than Malkin? I know one of them would be Sushinsky (lol), but i can't wait for the others.

Kharitonov?
Antipov?
Morozov?
Zonovjev??
Semin??

Fairly heated debate...with some people who obviously know thier history.

Seems like a "my dads player is better than your dads player" argument or some iteration of that. I have to agree that it is difficult, if not absurd to compare. There are the special players like Orr and Gretzky that defy comparison (and if Lemeiux had a full career, he would be there as well). These are people of 'recent' golden years that played in a place that will never be replayed or duplicated as well as men who are lost in the history of the NHL that were equally great in their times.

Bring up competition level, quality of equipment, and heart (the biggest intangible). The old guys get that in my opinion in that hockey was just a high class (yet extremely tough) blue collar job.

I don't like where professional sports are going in the flake department. Results are the only litmus test and in that, you cannot deny the Gretzkys, nor the Malones, (and have to acknowledge Mario) for that matter. Each were the pinnacle (by a big stretch).

Instead of comparisons, just understand what each accomplished in their own arenas. Those who are are on their way have enough pressure...lets just let them play.

BTW, I was absolutley privelidged to watch Gretzky in his younger and best years (as well as the supporting cast). I cannot sully that experience by 'dreaming' what it would be like to watch him in other eras. Can't happen...just enjoy the history.

My biggerst regret though is that just before the Oiler joined The NHL, both Ken Dryden and Bobby Orr retired. Now that would have been a treat to see...

Crap..lost my intital point (see above).

Re:the Gretzky comparison

I did not see the Canada-Russia Jr. final (I'm sure it was in Eastern Can). I was fortunate enough to see some of the 1981 Canada Cup. I was only 11 years old at this time, and I pulled myself at halftime in my atom football game as I "had" to go see the round robin games of Finland/Sweden and Canada/Russia. Coolest jerseys (the old Canada Cup style). Needless to say, I never missed a practice in my life after that...

Anyhow, Canada got their *** kicked in that game, and obviously did again in the final. That goes to show really what the Canada/Russia level was at that time. The russians were VERY good. If one wishes to look at the talent, look at what started coming to the NHL not too long after that.

I understand the need for comparison to justify worth in a player, and believe me, I have been proven wrong by the pundits. One only has to look at Crosby, Ovechkin, and in another venue, Labron James (however much I hate basketball). I never said they would fail, but just waited for them to succeed.

As for Malkin, let watch and enjoy...