@CS2Momentss There potentially would've been in that hypothetical if, say, Boston had won game 3 and 'game 6', and lost 'game 7' there would've been bitterness over playing 4 games on away ice without the possibility of building momentum on their home ice. Or on the flipside say Boston does sneak a win in Edmonton, win games 3 and '6' and then play the final game of the series at home in Boston. It's possible the NHL decides a different course if Boston had won game 3 as opposed to needing to reverse sweep to win the series.
@@AlaborJinta - yes it is. Here is the link to his Wikipedia page: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_career_achievements_by_Wayne_Gretzky Scroll down to “Playoff Records (15)” and look at the 10th record on the list. It says this: 10. Most points in final series: 13 in 1988, three goals and 10 assists (four games, plus suspended game vs. Boston)
@@AlaborJinta- Yes it is. Check his Wikipedia page and scroll down to “Playoff Records (15). It’s the 10th on the list: “Most points in final series: 13 in 1988, three goals and 10 assists (four games plus suspended game vs. Boston)”
@@zachlesk5685 I'm an Islanders fan. It's cool to know that the Isles helped toughen Gretzky up during their first encounter in the finals, then respectfully passed the torch to him when the Oilers won the next one. Would be nice if EITHER of our teams hoisted the cup sometime soon lol!
The ruling wasn't really weird. They had to toss the Game because the power couldn't be fixed and had to have Game 4 in Edmonton while they repaired huge damages. Boston Garden was ancient, the 1990 Finals they lost power again
@@ahsoka8938basically their way of saying that game 7 (if necessary) would be in Boston whereas originally it would have been in Edmonton. But yeah switching the numbers around seems unnecessary
It may seem unfair, but my take back then as a kid was that it's ok! You just have to consider that Boston took game 4, and Edmonton takes game 5. The only thing unfair was that psychologically, they were not on the board yet. They needed to prove they could beat them. Boston knew they were outmatched, but they felt they should have done better in 1990. (As per Ray Bourque)
I remember staying up late in toronto watching this game rooting for our canadian ally...i was pissed thinking someone didnt want them to win that night...it mustve been 1 oclock in the morning and i had school to go to...thankfully my pops let us stay up. Glad they won game 5 and we all celebrated canadas win!
And because of this, oddly, Gretzky was able to win ALL 4 of his cups ON HOME ICE. Interesting dilemma though, eh? If it were up to me, I think I would have entertained playing the remainder of that game in Edmonton, and then play game 5 the next day, if it was needed. BUT THEN...why sell discounted tickets for a 20 minute game that might include a Stanley Cup presentation... when you could play a whole game and charge FULL price for tickets? And if there were no full refunds for the deleted game in Boston, it looks like the NHL DOUBLE-DIPPED! I think I see the reasoning behind their solution to this unusual problem. It was a 4 game sweep that included up to 5 games worth of revenue!
@@michaelkeller5927 what’s makes it the worst league, I could see by delusion, but I think the NFL has worse officiating. I’m asking in good faith here
During the Covid-19 pandemic, sports stations would show beautifully remastered games and this was one of them. I was even surprised during the broadcast when the power went out, watching in 2020.
By now we're all very aware that Peter Pocklington traded Wayne Gretzky in his prime... but we all need to take a moment and think about that. WAYNE GRETZKY WAS TRADED!!! That remains insane, unfathomable. Don't let time obscure the fact that this should be unfathomable.
The NHL isn't a 32-team league without him. Going to California allowed expansion. He made the Kings legitimate. Edmonton survived even if they were never getting fair value for him.
Games 1-2-5-7 are played at the home of the highest ranked team, while games 3-4-6 are played at the lowest seed's arena. So playing the 7th game as a "game 4" means it would have been played in Boston and not Edmonton
Dynasty?. That wasn't a "Dynasty". That team was loaded with Hall of Famers who were on their second line...They could gave won another 5 or 6 Cups easily. They should have been the greatest NHL team ever assembled. Instead they traded Gretzky and it was over. Wayne never won a Cup again and Edmonton won another without Wayne and then slowly faded away. Only recently have Edmonton climbed out from the Gretzky trade.
I'm not sure why Edmonton wanted to trade Gretzky other than the fact that small market Edmonton couldn't afford to keep Gretzky once a new contract was going to be drawn up. And a big reason why the Oilers ownership couldn't afford to pay Wayne was because there were 8 other All-Stars on the team they had to deal with. Really sucks that business had to break up this dynasty, despite one more Oilers Stanley Cup two years later.
40 years ago, The Oilers were once again in a Stanley Cup final when Gretzky was "The Great One' 40 years later The Oilers are in a Stanley Cup final with another 'Great One' McDavid.🇨🇦🏒🏆
Mcdavid is nothing compared to Gretzky. The game is so different you can't compare the two mcdavid may be talented but he's not better than MacKinnon or Kuch. Hell I consider SID the best player the 2005 lock out.
