Who remembers what an autostereogram is?
It was the name for one of those pictures that looked like nothing, but when you stared at it for long enough the picture hidden inside suddenly became clear, and popped out at you.
It would appear that the picture is becoming clearer in relation to Hockey Fives, a new format of the game that most in the Hockey community appear to not want to see, but which the FIH (International Hockey Federation) are pushing on ahead with. They even have a World Cup planned in a format that has so far primarily only been played by the youth around the world.
The Hockey 5’s format was trialled for the very first time by the FIH in the carnival atmosphere of the HKFC Easter Hockey 6’s tournament back in April 2013. It was said at that time that the FIH would be seeking feedback and would be looking to trial further international events. Most of the feedback in Hong Kong it must be said was positive; one of those supplying that feedback is now a Board Member! It was also announced that Fives would be played at the 2014 Nanjing Youth Olympics.
This short format version of hockey is played on a half-regulation size hockey pitch, and was being heralded as a possible way for the future development and growth of the sport worldwide.
In 2013 it was stressed that “it is not intended to replace the 11 a-side game.”
We live in a rapidly changing world and the FIH has seen five people in the role of CEO since 2013; two holding the position in an interim capacity. Many more senior staff have come and gone so is it any wonder that the position on Hockey Fives has changed?
Also in that time the International Olympic Committee appointed a new Chairman in 2013, Thomas Bach.
There is no doubt that the Hockey Fives in Nanjing and subsequently in Rio on 2018 were a huge success. However what the traditionalists kept saying and repeating was “it is not intended to replace the 11-a-side game.”
That was then, this is now.
T20 cricket was never meant to be taken seriously, it was never going to have full international status, but look at how that has changed. From September 2018- September 2019 there were 183 International T20 matches played, 170 One Day Internationals and just 44 test matches. This is without counting the proliferation of domestic T20 competitions played.
Thomas Bach has made no secret that the Olympic Games format has to change. He has also made no secret that he wants more events, but the events to be played over a shorter period of time, and that the athletes leave once their event is over. We put forward an alternative format in An Olympic Year?
Commercially the model that the IOC is looking at makes sense.
Ever since Hockey was warned that it was in danger of being dropped from the Olympic Games all of the changes introduced we have been told have been made to make the game more appealing. Some have worked, some haven’t.
What is hard to comprehend is if Hockey was keen to fit into this new vision for the Olympic Games, why would you invent a new format of the game? Surely from a cost perspective and even a marketing perspective you would have looked to bolster the existing format of indoor hockey? Which is six-a-side. This could be played indoors in a venue used for other indoor events. The event, if mirroring the FIH’s indoor Hockey World cup would be over in five days, based on a twelve team format. Which would be similar to the current number of teams competing in the eleven-a-side format.
The Fives format is still going to see large costs to the host nation to create an outdoor pitch and arena. However the biggest hurdle is selling a concept that people appear not to want, or like.
At a meeting of the High Performance Directors from around the globe at the 2018 Men’s Hockey World Cup in India representatives of two nations are said to have been extremely gung-ho about the direction the FIH was going with “Fives,” reports claiming that they were almost evangelical on the concept. Interestinglyneither of those two representatives came from a hockey background. Those attending the meeting who were from the sport apparently had very differing views and opinions.
In addition some players are being prevented from airing their views on the format publicly, and being told if selected that they will have to play. That is not a good position to be in. One wonders if it was Indoor Hockey there would be a greater willingness to participate and a greater enthusiasm.
At least with T20 cricket players were able to opt as to whether they wished to play this format or not; most ended up playing simply because of the earnings they were missing out on. If Fives manages to bring in money that means players can genuinely earn a living from the game then it has a chance. The players have however heard it all before, CEO at the time Jason McCracken, revealed what the FIH Pro League was going to deliver when he said “We strongly believe that this new competition will fuel the growth of our sport for many years to come, significantly increasing revenues for hockey. As a result it will become a professional sport, making it a career choice for athletes who will be given the opportunity to perform in big, bold, packed and loud venues both in their homeland and overseas.” Halfway through season two it has fallen short in terms of that vision.
The Fives issue has been bubbling away in the background for a lot longer than many realise. In the next few years fans are going to see it pushed to centre stage.
The following presentation was created by the FIH with the intention of launching a world series in 2017. This never happened, but a similar format is expected to be rolled out in 2021, if they can get sponsors and television stations interested. Was this the issue as to why it appears to be three years behind schedule?
It was announced in November 2019 that in 2023 there will be the first Hockey Fives World Cup. This will no doubt enable the FIH to come up with a qualification process for the Olympic Games in 2028. After all for the eleven-a-side game Paris will witness a fourth different qualification process in past four Olympiads!
As much as people do not want to believe it Eleven-a-side Hockey will most likely make its last appearance at the Paris Olympic Games in 2024. Sources in Switzerland, where the IOC and the FIH are based, have stated that the deal has already been done, as pre-empted in Coming Full Circle just over a year ago.
Paris 2024 will see the International Hockey Federation celebrate their 100 years of existence. No doubt there will be much celebration. Then as the organisation enters its second hundred years it will welcome in a new Olympic era.
Ironically the FIH was created because the IOC opted to exclude Hockey from the Paris Olympic Games in 1924. Frenchman Paul Leautey realised that the sport needed an International organisation to promote its interests globally, and ensure that it was included in the 1928 Olympic Games in Amsterdam.
Seven countries met in Paris in January of 1924, Austria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, France, Hungary, Spain and Switzerland and founded what we know today as the Federation Internationale de Hockey, and Leautey became the first President. Hockey has been a part of every Olympic Games from that day on.
It is interesting to note that the FIH took control of Indoor Hockey in 1952, so why has more not been done to develop this side of the game in that time? The First Indoor World Cup was not contested until 2003, 51 years after they took control of the game! Indoor hockey is a great way for players to develop their skills and the potential is immense. The crowds witnessed in Europe, show that the support is there and a wonderful atmosphere is created. An atmosphere that will make those new to the game return.
Hopefully the door has not closed yet, and if eleven-a-side hockey is to go that Indoor Hockey can replace it. Although maybe Floorball will commandeer that space leaving hockey solely with Fives as an option?
Of course if this eventuates there will be a major shift in the sport, World Cups will now become the main focus and the pinnacle in the sport. Hopefully there is a plan in place to market that shift and pull everyone who follows the sport along to that way of thinking.
One wonders what Paul Leautey the man who formed the FIH would make of all of this? One feels he would have fought long and hard for the traditional format of the game. Sadly his spirit and legacy appear to have been forgotten; although he will not doubt be toasted in Paris in 2024! There used to be the Leautey Cup named after hims which was presented every year from 1928 – 1973. The Cup was awarded to the National Association “with the best results at the international level or that had through its initiative, its activity, its behaviour and progress, shown itself to be the most deserving team in the sport of hockey.” What a shame that this honour too has been forgotten, his name and what he set out to achieve.
Jasjit,
Many of the points you raise I have written about in other posts. Some of what you say I agree with, some I don’t. As I said I am going to let this one rest now.
Thank you once again for your thoughts.
Thank you Ashley for being so patient. Yes, I mixed up responses in my last post. Sorry, about that. I just wanted to counter all the points in one post.
1 You wrote “The higher the skill level and the pace at which the top players play in eleven a side, if you start being allowed to shoot from anywhere and are also allowed to raise the ball, people will get hurt. That is their view and again, personally I think they have a valid point. ”
There are 50 hours of hockey 5s on the Olympic Channel and YouTube. That includes two youth Olympic events and two senior Indian national hockey 5s events.
In all these 50 hours, you will not find a single person injured because of hockey 5s rule of allowing a hit from anywhere. This is not conjecture, this is fact! I have checked it, you can check it also and prove me wrong.
2 I think we could argue for days on the Hockey India League. You wrote “There needed to be supporting advertising and marketing efforts in the press and in other ways.”
What other marketing efforts? No other T.V network would have carried ads because Hockey India League is an exclusive STAR Sports product. Print media would have cost huge sums of money for very little return.
Unfortunately, people from outside India cannot understand the mentality of hockey lovers in India because they don’t live here.
For any sport to do well in India, two things are needed-
1 It should be fun to watch in a stadium or on T.V. Hockey has always had problems in this respect. First the players appear ant like for the audience, too small and too far away and the ball is so small that it is almost invisible to most viewers. If you try to zoom in, as broadcasters do, you get to watch a much smaller portion of the pitch. Soccer also has the same problem, but at least the ball there is big and clearly visible.
Also a hockey game is littered with interruptions. Efforts have been made in recent years to speed up the game but the problem still exists. Every few seconds you can hear the umpire’s whistle.
Third, many of the rules of hockey are complicated. Sometimes, even the commentator does not know why an umpire has blown his whistle.
2 India should do well in the sport. At the least it should not lose regularly.
As long as India was winning as in the 1970’s, the fans of hockey could have overcome the other issues hockey has, to some extent. Now that is not possible. In India, hockey is associated with losing. In T.V comedy shows, Indian hockey teams are lampooned as paupers and losers.
The FACTS speak for themselves. Indian hockey team HAS NOT BEATEN Germany, Holland or Australia in a major competition(World Cup or Olympics) in the past 40 years. NOT ONCE. Indian fans are not idiots, they know that champions league or other series are not taken seriously by European teams.
One could argue, what about football. It is popular in two states of India. True, but India never was a serious player in football. It was in hockey. People have bitter memories of the fall from grace.
Nothing Hockey India could have done would have convinced people to watch the league once the novelty wore off. Nothing Hockey India could have done that would have made people buy it’s merchandise.That is a lesson for the future, if Hockey India tries to revive the league it will lead to the same disappointing result.
For a lifelong hockey fan like me this is hard to endure. But one must clearly understand a problem so that mistakes of the past are not repeated.
HI Jasjit, I think in this response you have mixed up a lot of my comments with those of Ernst’s.
I have no problem adapting some of the rules from indoor to an outdoor version of the game, but I am opposed to Hockey creating too many versions of the same game. My personal view is that this will harm the game in the long term. The very issue that you say you want in the outdoor version is the very reason the experts – who are far more experienced than I am – do not want the game. Hitting the ball. The higher the skill level and the pace at which the top players play in eleven a side, if you start being allowed to shoot from anywhere and are also allowed to raise the ball, people will get hurt. That is their view and again, personally I think they have a valid point.
Once again I cannot agree with you at all in point four. First of all would you open a business and not have a marketing plan and a budget? As we have seen with the HIL and now the Pro League, Hockey is beginning to create a habit of launching new competitions without a marketing plan and/or a budget. Sadly you will struggle to succeed if that is the case. Yes, Star sports promoted it over their channels but only those who had Star sports saw those adverts. There needed to be supporting advertising and marketing efforts in the press and in other ways. Star in the end became frustrated that the only marketing was being done by them and at a great expense, an expense in addition to what they paid to broadcast the league.
You mention the ISL and Kabaddi. Both of which were supported by a large marketing budget! Anupam Goswami who was driving the HIL in years 2 & 3, which I personally believe were the best two years of the league, left Star sports to run the Kabaddi League which was purchased by the station. Learning from his experiences with the HIL he knew how important the marketing was, and there was marketing and there was merchandising. This was in part one of the reasons the league was such a huge success. Credit must also go to the broadcast of the games. The same is true of the Indian Super League. IMG, who were initially involved in years 1 & 2 of the HIL were involved in the football and I believe still are. As a sports management company that runs events across the globe they know what is needed to make an event profitable and successful. They also are involved with the IPL. That expertise linked with Star Sports and the financial backing of Reliance has seen the League rise and become a huge success. The key in these competitions is the know-how to put on an event is there and the marketing to support that event is also there.
You actually agree that there was no merchandising in India, there was nothing in the papers. My point exactly. Why did the HIL not have advertising in the papers, why did it not have a media partner in one of the newspapers?
You say Hockey India relies on Government subsidies, so too do many sports in many countries across the globe, but they go out and source sponsors to cover the cost of hosting tournaments and sending teams to tournaments. The HIL had sponsors, but clearly they did not bring in enough money for a marketing campaign. Which raises the question as to whether everything was covered off in the planning stage for the League to be a success?
You mention the FIH has no money. This too is a real concern that they are still so heavily reliant on money from the IOC. What is more of a concern is that their wage bill has exceeded the funds given by the IOC. Is that good management? How many sponsors have they brought in over the last four years? Very few, and certainly not the sums of money required to sustain the sport.
It appears that Hockey Fives is being introduced to try and be a financial quick fix. The hope being that it will bring in money in the short term like the IPL and T20. As you may have gathered I am not sure that it will. While being a good tool to promote the sport and to be used at junior level to develop the game, my view is that it should not have a World Cup and be taken seriously at senior international level.
Thank you for your comments. I am going to let this one lie now.
I so enjoy discussing this with you. You have a passion for hockey that very few have-
1. You have suggested that we should transplant indoor hockey outside with the same rules. But why.
(a) Hitting the ball is disallowed in indoor hockey. Totally understandable, since it is indoors and things could get smashed. But why should hitting the ball be disallowed outside. After all, it is allowed in regular hockey. The half in hockey 5’s is roughly the same size as the D in regular hockey.
(b) Indoor hockey has sideboards, just like hockey 5s. The sideboards prevent the ball from going outside the game of play and thus waste time. The indoor hockey side boards are not as high as hockey 5s. I hardly think this is an issue worth arguing about.
(c) Indoor hockey has D’s like normal hockey. Hockey 5’s has halves. I saw one of the best indoor hockey matches(Ger vs Hol in Indoor world cup 2015). I saw the strengths of indoor hockey in that match, it was fun for a hockey lover like me. But the weaknesses of the sport were also glaringly obvious. Hitting is disallowed, and you can score only from the D, therefore I saw a philosophy of play similar to handball. For long periods, nothing happened, two players passing the ball to each other for almost a minute and then they moved forward when they saw an opening. Long periods of nothing followed by lightning fast action.
This would never happen in hockey 5s. If the defenders bunch around the D like they do in indoor hockey, the attacker will shoot from afar and score more often than not. Player bunching like happens in indoor hockey will lead to disaster for the defenders. The philosophy of indoor hockey of long periods of inactivity leading to sudden action does not translate well to T.V viewing.
2 You wrote “Define a “huge hit”? How many people are now playing 5s in Nanjing? Or Buenos Aires? How many paying fans were at these venues? How many sponsors came forth after seeing this huge hit? I would argue it was a big fail.”
Hockey 5s may attract audience if given the chance, but the FIH has never given it a fair chance. Since 2018, not a single international tournament has been organized and not a single continental tournament.
For a hockey or non hockey lover there is no chance to sample the product. Advertisers will come if they see a good response on T.V. but first the FIH has to organize events. Only now, is there is a rush to get continental events rolling from this year. Once it gets some airtime on T.V, then we will see if hockey 5s succeeds in getting advertising revenue or not.
You talked about the impact in China. Please read this- https://www.fih.ch/news/nanjing-2014-youth-olympic-games-legacy-still-being-felt-in-china/.
As for Argentina, if you watched the 3rd day’s play as I requested, you will see the enthusiasm for the shorter version of the game.
3 You commented “I have traveled to 12 nations in Africa and many in Asia and there are empty buildings in all.” I live in a developing country. In dense populated developing countries, an empty building is a luxury no government can afford. In India for example, even some historical monuments have squatters.
4 You raised an interesting point. “The League relied on the clubs and Star sports promoting the competition, while the League itself did no promotion. Revenue streams such as merchandise were missed.” I have to disagree with that assessment. For all other sports like kabaddi, badminton, football etc the same format was followed with very different results. How exactly was the league going to promote itself, other than Star Sports? In fact Hockey India League was widely promoted on STAR’s various channels, movie stars and cricketers were roped in for the promotion. Hockey India, is an organization which exists on government subsidy, it does not have the money for any promotion of it’s own. And what exactly was it going to promote that STAR sports could not.
Merchandising might have helped, but there was hardly any merchandising in India itself, how could they have done merchandising for the rest of the world. Merchandising requires interest, and there was none in India, there was zero buzz and the newspapers hardly covered the proceedings. As I wrote earlier, I was present at the stadium for the semi-finals and finals of the last Hockey India League event. The stadium was half empty, despite having no entry tickets.
Besides, from your background in T.V, you know that T.V ratings are everything, they make up the bulk of the revenue. Hockey India League got poorer ratings than badminton and that says everything. Kabaddi, a regional sport gets great ratings and is thriving. Football does well too, even the fake antics of WWE wrestlers gets better ratings.
5 You wrote “”You say you prefer 1 outside perspective to 10 insiders. Why? These 10 insiders speak for probably hundreds or thousands of people actually playing and watching our sport. I prefer to listen to those actually making a contribution to our sport rather than those who claim potential but have not delivered any.” What about the people who thronged the stadium at Nanjing or Buenos Aires. Do the 10 represent these people too?
If you want to see facts, here they are to show how poorly hockey is doing worldwide-
https://www.thehockeypaper.co.uk/articles/2020/05/04/can-fih-and-hockey-pro-league-prosper-amid-ecomomic-uncertainty
FIH is suffering big losses
Here is another fact for your consideration. In a recent Play The Game report, it was revealed how revenue was divvied up from Oympic Games, with sports split in five groups and distribution ranging from $40 million down to circa $14m. Hockey is placed in the penultimate group and handed $16.3m.
Link is here – https://www.playthegame.org/news/news-articles/2020/0644_how-federations-share-the-revenues-from-the-olympic-games/
6 You wrote “For countries like Zambia it should not be about playing the Olympics… just yet. It should be about building your sport, get players to play the game every week, set up domestic leagues, set up youth development, set up domestic professional and recreational events and from that foundation start building a competitive national team to aim for the Olympics or World Cup. ”
I agree totally, but youngsters wanting to play hockey will be more encouraged by the performance of Zambia at the youth Olympics than by setting up matches in an empty stadium where no one know anything about the sport. You can never build a sport if people are not interested in it. First one needs to create some interest, leagues follow. Hockey 5s gives these small nations a chance to compete without the resources that regular hockey needs. Can you imagine Zambia beating Australia in regular hockey?
I suggest you read this post by a hockey 5s skeptic. She is an FIH accredited Australian umpire at the youth Olympics-
https://fivemetresplease.com/youth-olympic-games-1/
Ernst, thank you for your comment.
I have to say I agree with all of the points that you make.
I would love to know how many people are playing fives in Nanjing and Buenos Aires now. It appears to me in most nations they are only putting a team together for the qualifiers of the Youth Olympic Games and these players come from eleven a side. So there are no specialist five a side players. It would also tend to imply that the format is not increasing participation.
There is no doubt in my mind that the HIL helped Indian Hockey climb the world rankings, that and hosting tournaments where ranking points were available. It will be interesting to see if they can sustain that level without the HIL and once th generation that came through the HIL retire.
Thanks again for your input.
Jasjit, Thank you again for your follow up comments.
1. I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with you on point one. I have travelled to 12 nations in Africa and many in Asia and there are empty buildings in all. The owners may well be hoping to turn them into a shopping malls, a theatre or a factory but the reality is that many sit vacant for years. It comes down to where there is a will there is a way.
2. Why did the franchises in the HIL make huge losses? They made huge losses because they were the ones expected to spend the money on players, a venue and then on top of that it fell in their lap to market the games and their team. Sadly as mentioned there was no solid foundation for the league. The League relied on the clubs and Star sports promoting the competition, while the League itself did no promotion. Revenue streams such as merchandise were missed. I was part of the commentary team for three years so am well aware of the viewing figures. Dare I say that changing the rules and making a field goal worth two goals was one of the turning points in the last two seasons? It was an innovation that again was not thought through in terms of its presentation to the viewer.
To be fair when it came to finances two of the Franchises found themselves having to focus on larger issues than hockey.
3 & 4. Sport is not all about money, although in the modern era that appears to be the focus. Far more people play without being paid. This is where the focus should be, creating more clubs and more players. Forgive me for not getting excited about a T20 deal in the USA, back in the 1870’s-1890’s Australia and England played against a team from Philadelphia. There have been numerous attempts to win over the US, this is just another.
T20 as you alluded to in your first comment is a far cry from One Day Cricket and Test matches. While many will tell you the Big Bash League in Australia is great, the figures are not. Cricket has fallen out of the top ten sports in terms of participation. To me that is a warning sign. If the sport becomes more about the event than the contest you are heading down a dangerous path. Hockey needs to be careful. Indoor hockey has been hugely successful and the number of teams playing is growing, why not take that existing format and rules outside? Why re-invent the wheel? Which was the point of the original article.
As for your point in relation to fives at the Olympics show me proof that fives is growing the game, we have been told it will but as yet there is no proof. It is all spin. Floorball however is growing at a huge rate and that is attracting hockey players… So should Hockey be wary that Floorball will gain Olympic status ahead of Hockey Fives? This is a far greater discussion than can be had here.
Thanks again for your comments.
Well Donjas, pretty sure it’s just us 3 reading this at this point in time… But allow me to answer as well…
1. Think out of the box. Who says indoor hockey needs to be played indoor. Play it indoor or outdoor and on any (smooth) surface you have available. The pitch size is the same as for many other sports, so think multisport venues… It’s a sport that proven itself unlike 5s. It’s a set of rules that is embraced as complementary and valuable to traditional hockey, unlike 5s… Plus it’s not all Europe. Iran has medaled at a recent world cup… that was played in front of thousands of paying (!) fans in a highly entertaining set up.
2. Define a “huge hit”? How many people are now playing 5s in Nanjing? Or Buenos Aires? How many paying fans were at these venues? How many sponsors came forth after seeing this huge hit? I would argue it was a big fail…
3. You say you prefer 1 outside perspective to 10 insiders. Why? These 10 insiders speak for probably hundreds or thousands of people actually playing and watching our sport. I prefer to listen to those actually making a contribution to our sport rather than those who claim potential but have not delivered any. Plus for me the sport could always do with new viewers or sponsors. But the most important thing is to get new players playing the game. If you do not have the foundation of millions of people playing the game week in week out you can invest millions of dollars in viewers and entertainment. It will not grow the sport in a sustainable way…
4. I don’t know enough about cricket to add something meaningful here. But I did see the documentary “Death of a gentleman” about the evolution of this sport. Not something I wish for our game of hockey…
5. I disagree Buenos Aires in 2018 was a success. I disagree the HIL was a flop. The HIL is what propelled the India men’s team back into the top 10. It had thousands of fans (could have been more, agreed) coming to the stadium buying (!) a ticket at every venue, for every game, for several years. It had millions of viewers on tv. It was poorly managed and dropped because it did no longer served the political agenda of its creator…
6. For countries like Zambia it should not be about playing the Olympics… just yet. It should be about building your sport, get players to play the game every week, set up domestic leagues, set up youth development, set up domestic professional and recreational events and from that foundation start building a competitive national team to aim for the Olympics or World Cup. You want immediate success without paying your dues… that will never work. In sports as in life… Plus you talk about the costs. However costs are irrelevant… It’s all about a return on investment. If the return you want is viewers and sponsor we will probably never see eye to eye. The return I’m looking for is players playing the game. Because that’s the foundation upon which a sport will thrive…
You gave a well thought out response to my arguments. Allow me the chance to reply to them-
1 You wrote “The premise was that there are existing buildings in which you can play indoor hockey. ” Unfortunately there are no existing vacant buildings in most poor and developing countries. Every inch of land is used for commerce because of pressures of population. Australia is a rich country with a small population; it has more resources per person than almost anyone. I can imagine vacant lots existing there. But in countries like India or Pakistan or most of Africa and Asia, the concept is almost unheard of. If a place is vacant, then it is about to be developed into a shopping mall or theater or a factory.
The argument is given that indoor facilities can be constructed which can be used for multiple events. The main reason that Europe has so many indoor facilities is because for several winter months, outdoor play is not possible. That is not the case for most of the world. There the weather is mild enough all year round that sport can be played outside, there is no need for indoor facilities.
As for hockey 5s, new pitches will cost money but most existing pitches worldwide already have additional training pitches which can be used for hockey 5s.
2 You commented “Were they a hit because of the hockey?”
The energy and excitement that I saw for the hockey events at Argentina is something I have not witnessed in a long time.
I was present at the semifinals and finals of the last Hockey India League series. It saddened me to see empty stands, despite free entrance. What a fall? The Hockey India League failed not because of marketing but because people simply did not watch it. The T.V ratings were horrible(I have factual data to prove it), the franchises withdrew because they were incurring large losses.
Now look at hockey at the youth Olympics. Here is a link to day 3’s action-https://www.olympicchannel.com/en/video/detail/preliminaries-day-3-hockey5s-buenos-aires-2018-yog/
I gave this link and not the finals to remove any bias; you get to see an average day’s hockey. At the Olympic Channel website, you can also check out other sports and see the audience response there in comparison to hockey. You will see that hockey dwarfs them all.
3 Your T20 argument is potent and I find it hard to challenge it. But you will agree with me that because of T20 cricket leagues, cricketers are making more money than ever before. New places are being opened to cricket which was not possible earlier. Just a few days back, a multi-million dollar deal was signed to start a new T20 league in the United States in 2022.
4 Hockey is a great game, a true hockey lover will never want it to be replaced at the Olympics by anything else, even hockey 5s. However the growth of hockey 5s should not be blocked because of fears that it might replace hockey at the Olympics. That decision is for the IOC, it almost ejected hockey in 2013, it may do so again in the future whether hockey 5s exists or not.
Jasjit thank you for taking the time to comment.
I think that your comments show that there should be far more discussion on the topic than there has been.
To try and respond to the points that you make:
1. So there is going to be a cost to create indoor facilities? There will also be a cost to create a fives pitch. The premise was that there are existing buildings in which you can play indoor hockey. For example in Australia empty warehouses have had sand put inside and are used for beach volleyball. Where there is a will there is a way. Creating a specific pitch just for fives is likely to be less cost-effective than using a building that can be used for more than one sport.
2. Agreed that both of those events were a hit. Were they a hit because of the hockey? Or just because fans of sport wanted to attend the Games and therefore snapped up tickets to any event? There are plenty of people in and around hockey who do not want Fives, talk to fans, ex players, coaches and you will soon be able to gauge the feeling.
3. Here I agree with one part of your response, and that is that the Hockey community is insular and unwilling to change. You need to listen to both arguments to make an informed decision. The big question is whether it will benefit the game in the long run? Some will say we will never know. Others fear that with the current rules it will damage the game as people are going to be seriously hurt playing this at the highest level, people with far more playing knowledge than me. This leads into your next point…
4. T20 has damaged cricket and you are welcome to disagree. Having read the Cricket Australia report that has been buried it revealed that it had failed to grow the game and bring in new fans who watched other forms of the game. Now we have three formats of one game and the honour of representing your nation has been diluted. I agree that the One Day International World Cup has far more prestige than the T20 World Cup, but to some that now is the pinnacle. Agreed the Ashes is historically the most prestigious test series, but in spite of that there is currently talk that one form of cricket is going to have to be cut, by that they mean there will be less games of that format played per year, and it looks as if Test cricket is going to be the one. To me the key in all of this is a long term plan and tied into that plan is a marketing plan for all levels of the sport.
5. Totally agree no one should be forced to play anything. As for the Hockey India League being a flop, I am not sure on what you are basing that comment. The standard of play was excellent. The crowds in half of the venues was very good. Once again the problem was there was little or no marketing to support the tournament. The franchises had invested in the players and some did promote their teams but outside of Star Sports there was little or no promotion. Opportunities were missed in terms of promoting the sport and the competition. For example overseas fans could not purchase merchandise on the teams.
6. I hear what you are trying to say here, and the issue is the artificial pitch in top flight hockey. No argument there.
Your last comment is probably why it looks like Hockey Fives will be in the Los Angeles Olympics in 2028. As mentioned in comment 4 too many versions of one game is ultimately detrimental to the sport as a whole. The key is understanding what the goals are for the sport moving forward, sharing those goals and working towards them. At the present time it appears that decisions have been made despite the consultation process advising more caution and more thought. Why? Surely if you are going to go down this path it is best to take more time and make sure you get it right?
I just noticed this article. A few comments-
1 Indoor hockey will never be a low cost alternative for hockey. Get out of the European mindset, nobody outside of Europe has facilities for indoor hockey. To imagine that folks in Asia, Latin America or Africa will cut costs on hockey by adopting indoor hockey is a blinkered mindset. Any cost cut in a smaller pitch is lost by having to create the indoor facilities. Take a world view when thinking about hockey.
2 You commented “However the biggest hurdle is selling a concept that people appear not to want, or like. ” Who are these people, they are certainly not the spectators. Hockey 5s was a huge hit at both Nanjing and Buenos Aires Youth Olympics.
3 You commented “At a meeting of the High Performance Directors from around the globe at the 2018 Men’s Hockey World Cup in India representatives of two nations are said to have been extremely gung-ho about the direction the FIH was going with “Fives,” reports claiming that they were almost evangelical on the concept. Interestingly neither of those two representatives came from a hockey background.”
I would rather hear from one outside perspective than ten insiders. If people with no hockey background speak highly of this format, this suggests it has potential to attract new viewers and sponsors. That is what hockey needs, not that same insular community that is unwilling to change even if it benefits the sport in the long run.
4 You gave the example of T20 as something which has damaged cricket. I disagree strongly. The most prestigious cricket competition in the cricketing world is the World Cup of one day internationals and the Ashes Test series.
5 Nobody should be forced to play. Buenos Aires 2018 had no big names and was successful. The Hockey India League had all the big names and was a total flop.
6 For small countries like Zambia (who beat Australia at the youth Olympics), hockey 5s is the only chance they will get to play hockey at the big stage. In hockey 5s, the pitch costs are reduced by 70%, food and accommodation costs by 50%. Water and other pitch maintenance costs are reduced by almost 70%. That is a huge saving.
Once again a painful but correct piece Ashley 🙁
Allow me to add two relevant columns I wrote back in the summer of 2018 and January of 2019 for those who could be interested:
– The end of hockey : https://studiohockey.com/columns/the-end-of-hockey/
– Hockey5s : our Frankenstein’s monster : https://studiohockey.com/columns/hockey5s-our-frankensteins-monster-2/
So sad… the end of a great sport (well… as an Olympic sport). All because an individual wanted to become IOC member and get a shot at bringing the Games to his country. Our administrators did a really poor job of managing/protecting if 1 man (and entourage) is able to abuse our sport for his personal ambitions…