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.