The Red Wings had five Russians playing as a unit for awhile back in the 90’s: Larionov, Fetisov, Federov, Konstantinov & Kozlov.
The joke around these parts one year when they exited the playoff early was that they acquired a new player: Summerov.
With regard to ‘third’ goalies, I think each team has a member they consider their emergency goalie; not an official designation, just a casual understanding.
What I have always heard is that the home team’s trainer was the back up (for either team). Not sure if this is true, though I believe it is.
This is certainly possible. The two most notable emergency replacements that I can think of offhand are Julian Klymkiw and Joe Schaefer. Both guys were on the training staff of their respective teams (Detroit and the Rangers, respectively,) though I think Schaefer also was the team statistician. Schaefer was the emergency back up when Montreal’s Jacques Plante took a howitzer off the face and came back with his mask.
Cute joke, but frankly that line kicked ass, and yes won a championship with it too (and was only prevented from winning another with these same 5 players next year solely because one of them suffered severe brain damage in a car wreck in the offseason afterwards).
The Red Wings had a “Russian Five” line in the late '90s and early into the decade, including Fetisov and Larionov. Their passing was impeccable. Literally every pass was right on the tape. It really was special to behold.
Edited to add: Okay, I was severely beaten in getting to this point, apparently.
Hmmm. Maybe I got confused. I was living in the Bay Area when the Sharks had Larionov playing with Sergei Makarov and Johan Garpenlov - Wikipedia says that was the -ov line. Larionov and Makarov had been linemates on the original (Soviet) Russian Five.
I don’t think anyone has made it this clear for the OP:
Playing properly, a professional hockey player should be completely out of gas after a minute or so, with some able to stretch that time slightly based on conditioning and the pace of play.
It is completely normal to be almost to the point of non-functioning when hockey skating for 1:30. Sometimes, a player or a whole line will get stuck on the ice, and they will actually resort to standing still, simply because they cannot muster enough energy to actually continue skating/playing.
This happens sometimes when short-handed, but can happen at other times.
One of the most famous games in Stanley Cup history was in 1928 when New York Rangers goalie Lorne Chabot was injured in game 2. There was another team’s goalie in the stands (Alex Connell of Ottawa) but the Montreal Maroons insisted the Rangers use a player under contract. So 44 year old GM-Coach Lester Patrick suited up (he was a former defenseman) and led to Rangers to an overtime victory.
The next day the Rangers signed Joe “Red Light” Miller who played well enough to enable the Rangers to win the Stanley Cup.
I’ve been reading with interest, but hadn’t popped back in to thank everyone for the direct responses and the related discussions, all of which have been really interesting to me. I’m looking forward to my next Kings’ game, and I’ll definitely be paying a bit more attention, now.
Probably a larger reason that the Maroons wouldn’t let the Rangers use Alex Connell was that he was probably the best goalie in the league at the time. During the 1927-28 season, Connell set the all-time record for the longest shutout streak, at 461 minutes and 29 seconds. Yes, this happened in an era when forward passing was not permitted in the offensive zone. Still, it’s his record.
Ten years after Patrick’s heroics, the Chicago Black Hawks were without their number one goalie, Mike Karakas (one of the first really good U.S. born players), in the Stanley Cup Finals against the Leafs. Toronto magnanimously let them use their minor league goalie, Alfie Moore, in the first game of the finals. Moore stood on his head as the Black Hawks won, 3-1. After that, the Leafs wouldn’t let the Hawks use Moore anymore. Chicago lost the next game with their own minor league goalie, Paul Goodman, but Karakas returned for game 3, and the Hawks won games 3 and 4 to win the Stanley Cup, after a regular season record of 14-25-9.
Bumping this thread for the newby fans of the Washington Capitals. Many of them are ticked off at the coaching staff for the two too-many-men penalties against the Caps in the recent game against Tampa Bay.
The only thing the coaches do regarding changing the lines is to tell the players which line is up next. After that it is up to the players to signal each other - from the ice to the bench - when they intend to come off.
Example: left wing A is tired … left wing B on the bench knows it is his turn on the ice next. Typically LW-A signals with a wave of his stick or glove and the two players then choreograph their own change.
The player on the bench is allowed to jump into play when the player on the ice is within five feet of the bench - and clearly intends to get off the ice. If either of the two players botch the exchange and the end result is that both of them wind up in the play of the game the result is too many men on the ice. A two minute penalty will then be called.
Teams practice line changes but when it doesn’t happen in real game time it is the players fault. Not the coaches.
This is not exactly the case. During regular season game the teams will prefer to “roll all 4 lines” especially if they are up a goal or two. A trailing team will obviously try to get their scoring lines on the ice more often and shake up their lines.
The coaches are far more active in determining line changes than that but it is the players that must execute those changes properly.
Secondly, there are 4 lines of forwards and 3 defensive pairings which change either seperately or “wholesale” depending on several factors; the foremost being to match your lines and defencemen to counter the opposing teams lines.
Coaches may mix and match line-ups, substitute any player, add extra an skater, change defensive pairings, etc.. all on the fly.
My point wasn’t about which line is up next, but rather how the change is executed. However, thanks for clarifying my point which I bolded and italicized above.
