Can You Put A Price on History?

Sport has always been a place for differences of opinion on and off the pitch.

In the modern era we are constantly seeing management and administrators making changes to what has been the norm. Sometimes those changes are for the best, and on other occasions they prove detrimental. One of the corporate buzz words is “Innovation.” Fans are frequently told that “innovation” is crucial to the continuing success of their sport. Some embrace “innovation” with unquestioning open arms, others raise an untrusting eyebrow and wait to be convinced.

Sometimes one feels that there is change for change’s sake. We are seeing so many sports opt for shorter fast-food varieties of their sport, they may bring in the dollars but are undermining the traditional formats. It is a brave man or woman who is prepared to throw out over 100 years of history for a new bite-size version of the game and placing it centre stage.

Hockey Australia is the latest sporting organisation to announce new “innovations” that it sees as re-invigorating the game. Yet despite claims of a long consultative process there are many who remain unconvinced that the path they have chosen is the right one. They have said that they engaged a consultancy company, as so many organisations do; it is almost as if this absolves the decision-makers of responsibility. Let us never forget that these consultancy companies are simply paid to table ideas. They get paid whether the organisation adopts the idea or not, and frequently due to a lack of involvement with the right people their suggestions miss key issues, that end up causing companies and sports severe headaches.

The biggest concern to many however is the timing of these “innovations.” The FIH’s Pro-League is due to commence in January 2019. Australia is the World number one side in the men’s game and the women are ranked fifth. Only Australia, the Netherlands and Argentina have both their men and women ranked in the top five. This makes them a key player in World Hockey.

Television deals have been signed up across the globe for every participating nation in the Pro-League, which by all accounts has not been plain-sailing. Suddenly Hockey is going to be seen around the globe on a regular basis for six months, no longer just when the World Cup is on or the Olympic Games. These television stations have been convinced that the game is exciting, and that the Pro-League will showcase the best teams and players in the world.

It does not look good to suddenly have the number one side in the world opting to “innovate” a new format of its own, with new rules to try and make the game more appealing to a wider audience. It firstly looks as if they are undermining the Pro-League and secondly is contradicting the pitch the FIH have given to obtain television coverage. There are some who feel that it has the potential to jeopardise the current broadcast deal.

So what are these “innovations.” The game will be reduced to nine-a-side. Each team will have twelve players, eleven outfield and one goalkeeper. There will be four ten minute quarters. Two of the attacking players must be nominated pre match and then remain in the attacking 50 yards. When a field goal is scored the attacking team has the chance to claim a bonus point; here the attacking player enters a one-on-one with the goalkeeper just as in a shoot-out. The first quarter of the match will be a “Powerplay.” In this quarter, goals will be worth double, and a deliberate breach of the rules in the attacking circle will not result in a penalty corner, but in a one-on-one.

Having had to navigate the ‘two goals for a field goal’ scenario in the Hockey India League, changing the way scores are measured needs to be given a great deal of thought in terms of the terminology used. Should goals now become points? Or should the score be shown in a similar way to Australian Rules Football, separating the Field Goals, Penalty Corners, Penalty strokes, Power play goals and one-on-one goals or bonus point goals as they may become known? Or with so many ways of scoring is this simply too complicating?

Leaving it as a simple scoreline with the numbers can also turn viewers off. As with the HIL three field goals saw a scoreline of 6-0, and to some channel surfers they immediately assumed the game was over, whereas a field goal to the opposition meant it was back to 6-2. These are very real issues, and need much more thought and longer conversations.

It was interesting to read on social media fans of the game begging for the administrators to stop changing the rules. A very valid argument as Rugby Union has fallen into that trap and now there is little to differentiate between it and Rugby League apart from Scrums and Line-Outs. This should be a lesson for many sports looking to tamper with the rules.

So does Hockey really need a new format? They have eleven-a-side and an indoor five-a-side version of the game which has gained real momentum and is pulling in fans around the globe; albeit not in Australia where the World Cup team had to fundraise to get to Berlin to compete.

Surely it comes down to marketing and promoting the products that already exist and being innovative in the way you do that?

In Victoria they held a trial match of the proposed format last week. In the preamble the CEO of Hockey Victoria, Andrew Skillern stated that the changes were all about “transforming not only the on-field format but the way it is delivered to the community.” A comment which would tend to back up that Hockey has not been marketed well to the greater public.

Mr. Skillern who has increased participation numbers in Victoria and is passionate about advancing the game in Australia, then turned his attention to the Australian Hockey League and went on to say “we have a two week tournament at the moment where the states are kind of hidden somewhere in Australia and we don’t know much about it, and we are talking about a home and away league that really brings to life city based franchises and teams that people start to feel affiliated with and passionate about.” Once again his comment highlights the lack of a relationship with the media across the country in order to gain coverage, and also a failing to market the competition and the game.

The Australian Hockey League has been contested since the 1920’s, and it is one of the oldest national competitions in the country. The Sheffield Shield commenced in 1892 but only three states competed. In 1926 that stretched to four states and in 1947 to five. In 1928 there were four states competing in the Interstate Hockey Championships, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia.

Australian Rules did not create an interstate competition until 1976. Soccer – used here simply to differentiate the sports – did not have an organised national tournament until 1962 when the Australia Cup was established.

These facts are published to show that Hockey has a very rich history and a national competition approaching 100 years in existence, only Tennis and Cricket can match that. So why would you suddenly make all of that past history irrelevant by changing the format of the game?

As the Football Federation of Australia has found to their detriment, ignoring the records from the National Soccer League which ran from 1976-2004 was foolish, and disenfranchised many past players and fans, who refused to accept that the A-League was the first ever competition, and that the new records set were stand alone.

By all means commercialise the State teams as we have seen done with Big Bash Cricket, but do not throw the history on the scrap heap. By all means change the format of the competition to make it more viable and marketable, but it must stay at eleven-a-side; over the years there have been many format changes, but the end result must remain the same, one state is crowned the Australian Champion.

On Linked In prior to the trial game Mr Skillern wrote: “As leader of Victoria Hockey I will lead a strong voice for change and taking a leap of faith. As leaders in Sport we cannot sit still and expect that the future generations will enjoy what we all grew up with.

So to any of the traditionalists our (sic) there, sceptics, knockers or doubters. This new approach to sport, this thing called sports entertainment is here to stay so please jump on the train because come Friday night it’s leaving the station.”

This raises an altogether new question which is what role do the administrators see themselves in. Are they in the entertainment business or are they in the business of sport?

Is not the key role of these sports administrators to take on the responsibility of safeguarding the sport, and ensuring its future long after they have left? Their job is surely to ultimately leave the sport in a better place when they do move on. If that is the case it is vital that they understand the history and respect it. By all means be innovative in terms of bringing in new participants, – which Mr Skillern has done in Victoria – and find innovative ways of marketing the sport, and the rules definitely need reviewing; although tweaking rather than the radical changes being advocated.

Is it necessary and beneficial to completely change what already exists? Where would this put Hockey as an Olympic sport? Its future has already been questioned having the World Number one side abandon eleven-a-side for such a hybrid format would surely place the Olympic competition in even greater danger.

Cricket Australia has already realised that it has created a monster that is out of control with the Big Bash League. A league that is proving detrimental rather than an aid to other forms of cricket. It would be terrible if Hockey were to go down a similar path and abhort almost 100 years of competition and history. If we are to have this new format have it as an alternative format of the game, not instead of the original game, just as football has futsal and seven-a-side as alternatives, but eleven-a-side hockey must remain the main product.

Rather than employing consultancy firms, how about finding a company who can market the existing game and the heroes who play it? After all, as stated, Australia is the Number one in the men’s competition and number five in the women’s, how many other Australian sports can boast those world rankings? In Cricket, Australia are third in the Test Rankings, fifth in ODIs and fourth in T20, while the women are ranked second. In Rugby Union the men are fourth and the women sixth. So you can see how marketable these athletes should be.

The sad thing is administrators have come and gone over the years, many have looked to the future and proclaimed what they are going to do, but nearly all have failed to take the time to view the past.

Following is an extract from a piece entitled “Let’s Make Hockey a Spectator Sport” written by Stan Imer in “Hockey Circle” in 1963, and reproduced in “The Book of Hockey.” Mr. Imer was made a life member of Hockey NSW in 1973 and the New South Wales official of the year award carries his name; and that of Mavis Randle.

“Large crowds watch soccer and can enjoy it and understand it without knowing much about the rules. If they want to appreciate the finer points of what’s going on there are very few rules to understand. Can spectators watch Hockey and understand it as easily? Obviously not, because by comparison the rules are very intricate; because all too often decisions are not based on fact but on the umpire’s opinion; and because the ball is very small, moves quickly and some of the best play cannot be seen to advantage from the sideline.”

He goes on to say that

“Basically there are two sides to this problem. The first is that the game must be made less technical and easier to follow. The second, but related problem is to attract public interest.”

So fifty years on the problem is the same. Mr Skillern implied that being a traditionalist is a bad thing, it isn’t. He also implied that if you doubted what was being proposed or were sceptical of it having the desired results you would be left behind. There were many who questioned the removing of off-side back in 1998, or rolling substitutions commencing in 1992, yet these changes are now accepted as commonplace. These people were not left behind. Having a difference of opinion should not result in a person being ostracised, in fact it should be welcomed as a discussion point from which an even better alternative may be born.

There will be a challenge marketing this new format should Hockey Australia opt to proceed with it. That in itself will cost money. Money that could be spent on promoting the current format. In addition many fans are still not happy that the game was reduced from two 35 minute halves to four fifteen minute quarters, so how are they going to feel with even less time being played?

Having watched Ric Charlesworth’s International super Series Hockey Nines each year of the three it was played in Perth, it was something different. It was played in a more relaxed atmosphere and never seemed to be more than entertainment. Would I opt to watch that over a normal eleven-a-side game, no. Watching the trial game via the internet I was left feeling the same way.

If that makes me a traditionalist then I wear that badge with pride. Although I see myself as more of a protectionist, protecting the history of the game. Once you break with tradition all that history that has gone before ceases. It has been said that it is wise never to ignore or forget what has gone before as you will learn a great deal from the past.

As stated fifty five years ago the game can elevate itself in terms of public appeal, by heeding the comments of Stan Imer. Revisit the rules, simplify them, and market the strengths of the game, the skill, the speed and the wonderful players. It is time to focus on the game’s strengths rather than trying to recreate the wheel.

Can You Put A Price on History?
Tagged on:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

6 thoughts on “Can You Put A Price on History?

  • February 27, 2018 at 3:01 pm
    Permalink

    Carlo, thanks for you comment. I will admit I do not know a great deal about the administration of the game in Victoria, so will not comment.

    I do agree 100% though in relation to promotion of the IFOH. WE have seen this around the globe. The TV stations promote the game but there is little budget to do any extra promotion. In Malaysia next week you will see school kids given the job of supporting a team each day. This support is incentivised by them winning prizes if they are the best supporters. There are huge plusses to this. One they are exposed to top flight sport and you wonder how many will be inspired to take it up and become an internationals of the future. They are supporting teams and working as a team, if they do well they get rewarded. This benefits their school and also they are held up as doing good for the school. To me this is a win win situation. With so many seats in Melbourne why could something similar not be arranged? You could even win the school a match or training session v the Kookaburras or Hockeyroos.

    As you state get the crowd in there expose them to the game. Even have a sponsor pay for the tickets and promote that they have done so. It makes such a difference if the crowd is good.

    I am like you, the game does not need changing in my opinion, a few tweaks certainly but what it needs is proper marketing. We have some of the most personable athletes in sport in Australia, promote that.

    Finally I too have heard the rumour re the Pro League and HA not having the money to participate. This is a major concern. Hopefully there will be some clear messages from the FIH and HA on the Pro League post the Commonwealth Games.

  • February 23, 2018 at 2:05 pm
    Permalink

    Great article Ash, it is time administrators running hockey (who rely entirely on participants for revenue), listen to, and govern based on participant views, not aspirations for ego driven legacies.

    In Victoria, no one is consulted. HV do not source adequate income from other streams to feed back to participants and therefore do not have the right to make autocratic decisions that change the essence of the sport they are caretaking.

    In the festival of hockey in Melbourne in November, Fox Sports had fantastic lead in marketing with Mark Knowles, the games were covered expertly by you and, as always, brought great enthusiasm and engagement for the viewer. Impressive aerial views of the city and state hockey centre were comparable to any highest tier sport on TV. The greatest flaw was 3 people in the stands undoing all of this great work. Why were ticket prices so extreme? Why weren’t 5000 tickets given away to ensure a packed house? Extreme as it sounds, hockey does not have many chances to attract new participants. (Other than that festival, we are completely reliant on Olympic success and exposure, which is why the dismal performance of Aus national teams in Rio has dire consequences). The broadcast of the festival of hockey was an opportunity to exhibit the best possible outcome for the sport – instead it was a disaster in marketing. Again HV creaming participants for money is astounding, and there is no foresight in what is important and how to WORK HARD TO GET THERE.

    When hockey is on TV, get crowds there by whatever means possible. Create visuals like the HIL. Night matches on blue turf, digital signage, colour, atmosphere, etc. A big goal or more points is pathetic. A good way to injure players is 9 players on a full field.

    If you cannot attract interest, do not opt for a shortcut and change the game. Over the last 7 years in Victoria, HV have developed numerous competition structures and re-formats, and at every moment of difficulty, have reverted to sidestepping, inventing a completely new framework and never addressed or efficiently rectified the actual shortcomings of problems they have devised and constructed.
    Good administration is not by trial and error at the expense of all participants and what they are PAYING for.

    This modified 9s is yet another example. Loose thinking, misguided foresight, no accountability.

    If word on the street is correct that HA does not have the money or resources to fund teams in the FIH pro league, hockey is dead in this country. Miss international competition and ranking = Olympics impossibility = no exposure to broader public = no participants.

  • February 20, 2018 at 11:03 am
    Permalink

    James, thank you for taking the time to comment.

    I have to say I agree with you that the sport needs to be careful if it wishes to retain its Olympic Status as an 11-a-side game. Hopefully as I alluded to history will be the reason that it remains in the Olympic Games. Maybe if they loosened the sponsorship rules we may see an Indian company come forward to sponsor the Hockey at the Olympics in order to protect their major part in Hockey’s Olympic history.

    I agree that sport is very much a part of entertainment these days, but one has to be careful how far you go with the entertainment side of things. If that takes precedent over the game that is when problems arise.

    As one reader of this piece suggested to me verbally, how about having the goal illuminate when a goal is scored, similar to the wickets being hit in cricket?

    Yet the key to me is marketing. If you look at Jamie Dwyer as an example. Probably one of the greatest athletes this country has produced. How many other Australian’s have been voted the best in the world five times? Are we likely to ever see that again? Yet how many sports fans in Australia know his story? He is just one player, there are plenty of others who have great stories. Players who never made junior teams but now play for the number one side in the world. These stories will keep people in the sport because it gives them hope that they too can do that.

    Thanks again for your comment.

  • February 20, 2018 at 10:54 am
    Permalink

    All White thank you once again for commenting and for the compliment.

    You make a very valid point in relation to T20 and Futsal, in relation to the rules being the same.

    As for your comment re Ric Charlesworth’s nines, there are a number of people who share that view. Thanks again.

  • February 19, 2018 at 10:36 am
    Permalink

    Ashley,

    A very interesting read and quite difficult to understand the direction that Hockey Australia are pursuing with the Australian Hockey League.

    Primarily, there appears nothing significantly innovative regarding the trialled Australian Hockey League format. Hockey 9’s was played a number of years ago, and you would think that if it was a roaring success that it would have had more prominence since then. A challenge to this seems that the International body already has two outdoor formats of the game, 11’s and 5’s. As you say, highly confusing as to why HA would choose to now look at 9’s. Further copying of goal / point scoring activity only adds to the confusion of the sport.
    It’s ironic that the Hockey Victoria Operations Manager posted on LinkedIn how tremendous an event the 2017 European Hockey Championships were (from a sport and spectator experience), and how fortunate he was to have the Euro Hockey CEO spend time with him there. Yet less than 12 months later his own CEO is stating basically that 11’s is old and redundant and the sport needs new life breathed into it. And the adopted way of doing so is to copy older trialled formats and scoring methodologies? Hardly seems innovative….

    This is not to be confused with the current social hockey activity we are seeing in Victoria. It may be wonderful from a community activity and health promotion perspective, but it remains to be seen if it creates a new and increased hockey population engaged in the sport.

    Hockey is a different commodity to cricket, rugby, the afl and other high profile sports. One would imagine that the future of hockey is deeply in the hands of the IOC. The promotion of Hockey 5’s at the Youth Olympic Games in Argentina later this year is likely to again raise the interest of that format replacing 11’s in the Summer Games, given the stated futuristic direction of the IOC.

    Agreed, sport has to become more of an entertainment product. Though it would make sense to most that the directions pursued by a nation with the #1 and #5 ranked teams would be more aligned with the International body. Change for change sake doesn’t appear purposeful at all, especially in isolation and in conflict with the Pro League and signed TV deals. There appears to be a dangerous environment of groupthink in HA right now. Sadly you would expect more from an organisation with a high profile CEO and a board with a strong presence of former international players.

  • February 16, 2018 at 9:29 am
    Permalink

    As I have said before not a great follower of hockey, except when you are commentating, and you make the sport come alive. This is crazy, who comes up with these ideas?

    I thought football administrators were bad but it seems each sport has idiots in charge.

    As you say T20 has not helped other forms of cricket or participation numbers, so how is a form of the game being put forward going to help Hockey? The reason T20 works and the same with Futsal is that the rules are in the main the same as the main traditional game. they are just smaller shorter versions. This is not even close to the traditional version and is doomed to fail.

    If it could not survive as a tournament with the great Ric Chalesworth’s name attached to it what hope does it have on its own?

    As I said I don’t follow the game closely but this seems totally mad. Not just the game they are coming up with but letting all that history go.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.