Am I being cynical, or do so-called "all-time teams" in hockey seem redundant?

Question

Recently, I overheard a radio interview where the International Ice Hockey Federation is compiling an all-time international hockey team. They plan on polling over 100 hockey writers to come up with a list that will take into account a player's international career and professional exploits. That being said, for the next few months these writers will sell us hockey fans on a team that will have the usual suspects: Wayne Gretzky, Slava Fetisov, Martin Brodeur, yada, yada, yada.

The question here is this: isn't it kind of pointless to announce an all-time team now, when it will be altered in twenty-five years? Better yet, what good is this IIHF team if it doesn't include pre-World War 2 players, any members of team USA (especially 1960, 1980, and 2002), or countries other than the former Soviet Union, Canada, Sweden, and Finland?

What are some ideas to make this team legit? Any other thoughts?

Answer 1

The "All Time" what ever misses the mark in every sport. We (here on the forum) couldn't come up with an "All Time" of current best players....someone unworthy would be on it, someone worthy left off. The redeeming factor of these lists is the introduction of former greats to newer/younger fans. Otherwise we have neo-phytes thinking that Sid Crosby invented something. It (the list, the debate it creates) illuminates that this has always been an exciting sport, played by the most skilled athletes in the world, for a long, long time. We know that nobody can really distill the "greatest ever" from the huge list of current and former greats. But it does give the new generation of fans some historical perspective and perhaps some interest to research. I despise the "greatest all-time" anything, but it does serve a valuable purpose.

Answer 2

I'm not sure there would be signifcant difference in an all time team made up of players just from the countries you mentioned and one that includes the rest of the world. Assuming the team would consist of 12 forewards, 6 defensemen, and 2 goalies, the only other 2 countries that could have a contribution to the team would be the US and (former) Czcheslovokia, what players woud be disqualifies that belong?
In my opinion the considerations for goalie spots would include Tretiak and a long list of Canadians such as Patrick Roy, Marty Brodeur, Plante, Bower, etc.
Defense arguements that are non Russian or Canadian for the top six spots would be limited to Lidstrom and maybe Borje Salming. The 2 best American d-men would probably be Phil Housley and Brian Leetch. As good as they were, they'd have a hard time cracking the top 6 considering Bobby Orr and Ray Bourque have 2 spots sewn up.
As for forewards, if you add Gretzky, Lemieux, Howe, Rocket Richard and Jean Beliveau to the top 6 on each team of the '72 summit series, you'd be hard pressed to find much room for non Russians and non Canadians here too.

Answer 3

I expect that only Bobby Orr and Wayne Gretzky will represent Canada as they seem to be the only ones who do so.

In 1998 (the 90th anniversary) the following was the all-time IIHF team
C: Wayne Gretzky
LW: Valeri Kharlamov
RW: Eric Kuhnhackl
D: Robert Orr
D: Viacheslav Fetisov
G: Vladislav Tretiak


To your second point, you can never make it 'more legit'. There are many many people in Europe who don't see the gap between European leagues and North American leagues to be as huge as we do. Part of this is because outside of the Canada Cup/World Cup/Olympics our Canadian professionals have been on par with the Czechs, Russians, and Swedes instead of miles ahead of them, and your American professionals have...well....stunk out the joint on ocassion.

Because European journalists only see the NHL's best Canadians and Americans play once every 2 years at best, they don't believe that the gap is as large.

Granted, Kharlamov, Kuhnhackl, and Tretiak would probably have been dominant in the NHL if they were able to adapt.

Vladimir Krutov was unable to adapt - Tim Horton's creations were more than he could handle. Sergei Makarov adapted, but didn't enjoy. Vaclav Nedomansky was able to adapt, but came to North America too late.

Just like anything else it is something that somebody will find fun to do, and the rest of us will ponder and debate the selections.


And no...............Sidney Crosby will not make the team (nor do I feel that MacKensie, Duhatschek, Proteau or Fischler will give him any consideration)

Answer 4

It's all spin isn't it? I mean one way to gain print space is to come up with these attention grabbing schemes. What do they prove? That 100 guys have thought about this topic and have reached a consensus as to who should have their name on a list that means nothing.
Almost seems like the IIHF wants to keep the spotlight on them and the upcoming World Hockey Championships which will be held in North America for the first time.
Cut through the obvious marketing hype and you end up with a list that has about as much significance as my grocery list.

Answer 5

I think it is an insult to the pioneers and architects of the glory days in any sport when players from different eras are compared. So many things change every couple of decades and societal values have an influence on players as well.

Answer 6

I believe ALL all-time teams are redundant in any sport. It's just so hard to compare the level of play from say 60 years ago to now. Obviously the players are faster,bigger, stronger but it's still almost impossible to calculate.

Answer 7

I agree with you. People pre WWII were great and not recognized. "Foreign" players should be put into this who didnt play in the NHL. I don't think there is a 100% completely fair way to create this list.

Answer 8

I've always thought the whole "all-time," "1st team," or whatever they call them now pretty dumb. You're never going to see those people play, even if they are still currently active. And even if they do, who are they going to play if they're the best "all-time?" If you take it literally, there's no other team out there who can beat them so why bother?