On the 6th of June the Executive Board of the International Hockey federation met in Lausanne and a number of key decisions were made regarding the future of the sport.
One decision was that world rankings would be introduced for the Junior national teams.
Some in the game gave an approving nod, others questioned why there was such a need for these teams to have a world ranking, and more importantly how such rankings would work.
Many nations at the senior level of International hockey have bemoaned their new World Ranking system since it was introduced in 2020. Even though almost all will agree that the old system needed an overhaul. What is causing concern now is that nations are hamstrung by how many games they play, and which opposition they can get games against; as many ranked above them no longer wish to play teams ranked below them. The reason being that in such games, which the higher ranked teams may use to blood the next generation of players now must be won. As if they lose they have ranking points deducted.
This new system came as a result of 12 months of research, analysis and testing, and sees the number of points exchanged being dependent on the result of the match, as well as the importance of the fixture. On paper it all sounded good, but the reality is long term it could impact on many nations funding and sponsorship. (Perceptions Must Not Define You)
Although at the time the FIH’s Sport and development director Jon Wyatt did warn, “As with any new system launch and the introduction of change, it will take some time for everyone to adjust, and we will continually monitor the rankings to ensure it is accurate and fair to all.”
At the time that that this new system was introduced Jon Wyatt was also quoted as saying “This new match-based ranking system will reflect current performance of all nations far more accurately than the previous system.”
The previous world-ranking system had been in place since 2003, and was devised to assist in the allocation of teams into pools at major tournaments.
Based on that knowledge one can understand why the old system would therefore be used to try and determine a world ranking for under 21 teams. However, as the old system was deemed not to have reflected the the performance of teams accurately there is a question mark over why this system was chosen.
Maybe it is because under 21 teams have even less opportunity to play meaningful games than the senior national sides.
The two renowned international under 21 tournaments are the Sultan of Johor Cup hosted by Malaysia, and the 8 Nation Invitational under 21 tournament that was hosted in Madrid; although this has not been contested in recent years.
The problem with these two tournaments is they are Invitational tournaments, so World Ranking points cannot, – and shouldn’t – be awarded.
Which leaves the only official under 21 tournaments being the Confederation Championships and the World Cup itself.
Previously the rankings for Junior World Cup Events have been based on where teams finished at the previous World Cup.
As it states on the FIH website “the calculation of the ranking points and the weightings attributed to each competition is similar to what was previously applied for the Senior Outdoor Ranking system and takes into consideration the results of the last three (3) FIH Hockey Junior World Cups and the last three (3) Continental Junior Events.”
On the link on that page it takes you to a number of spreadsheets which show you the number of World Ranking points allocated depending on where a nation finishes in the each tournament. (see below)
One thing that does not seem particularly fair is the fact that the points in the Junior Asia Cup and the Junior Africa Cup are far less than the other Confederation tournaments. While historically this was put in place in the senior ranks because these competitions were deemed to be of a lower standard than others, it seems a little harsh that this has carried over into the u21 ranks. Especially as in the Junior World Cup which dates back to 1979 there has only been one occasion in 12 editions that an Asian side has not been playing in the medal matches at the end of the tournament.
In the Pan American Junior U21 Championships, Argentina has won every tournament bar one when they lost to Chile in 2021. This confederation tournament dating back to 1978 has been dominated by three nations Argentina, Canada and Chile. Some would say that Asia sees a far more competitive field vying for the Junior Asia Cup, so why the difference in points awarded?
Then we have only Australia and New Zealand competing for the Oceania title; Vanuatu did compete three tournaments ago. The winner receives 750 points, runner up 700, the same as Pan America and Europe. While Asia the winner only receives 637.5 points and the runner up 595.
In Africa the winner only receives 562.5 points and runner up drops to only 210 points. Where is the incentive to achieve when there is so little reward? Decades ago some would have put this down to the Colonial Europeans keeping their colonies in check, but today it is hard to fathom. Of course this has an impact on how teams rank, and limits their opportunity to rise. It also can effect who a team is drawn against at a World Cup.
With the new World Rankings for juniors the performances at the previous three Junior World Cup tournaments have been weighted. Points from the last world Cup remain at full value while the previous tournament sees points reduced by 50% and the tournament before that teams receive only 25% of the value.
When it comes to the Confederation Championships the points have been added up based on three tournaments to determine who is ranked one in the confederation over those three tournaments. Then based on their points tally they are placed first, second etc and have been awarded the respective points.
There is a problem with this system as both the African and Asian competitions were cancelled due to the Covid Pandemic and never took place. In what appears to be a bizarre decision the FIH has awarded the same standing as the previous event for those that did not take place. One has to ask how can that happen, or even be found to be acceptable? Although one should point out that it does not in fact affect the final standings in these confederations. Surely if only two tournaments were played it is based over those two?
The question that this decision raises is why doesn’t the same rule apply to the World Cup? Why haven’t teams who qualified, but were not able to participate due to Covid regulations in those countries, been awarded points based on their previous performances?
Hockey fans will recall that due to the Covid pandemic three nations due to the protocols in place in those countries were forced to withdraw from the tournament after they had qualified, England, Australia and New Zealand.
If we go back to the 2016 event held in India, Pakistan despite qualifying were unable to obtain visas to participate at that World Cup.
So based on the decision made with the Continental Confederations should those teams have been allocated the same points as the previous tournament? Albeit Pakistan receiving 50% of the points for the 2016 tournament that they were prevented from participating in? Surely that is only fair?
If that were the case it changes the world rankings that were published last month. Australia would jump from 9th to 3rd, New Zealand from 13th to 8th, England 15th to 10th and Pakistan would move from 12th to 11th, but these movements would result in other teams also changing places
On the 24th of June the draw for the Junior World Cup was revealed based on the new World Rankings. This resulted in teams ending up in the following pools based on those World Rankings.
| Pool A | Pool B | Pool C | Pool D |
| Argentina | Germany | India | Netherlands |
| Malaysia | France | Spain | Belgium |
| Australia | South Africa | Korea | Pakistan |
| Chile | Egypt | Canada | New Zealand |
If it was agreed that a precedent had been set with the Asian and African Confederations being awarded points for tournaments that were unable to take place due to the Covid Pandemic, and the nations that qualified for the Junior World Cup but were unable to attend due to Covid restrictions were duly awarded points as mentioned, it would have an impact on the World Rankings. This in turn would have an impact on the draw that was made for the Junior Men’s World Cup, and no doubt the Women’s event too.
The draw for the Men’s Junior World Cup would suddenly look like this.
| Pool A | Pool B | Pool C | Pool D |
| Argentina | Germany | India | Australia |
| France | Spain | Belgium | Netherlands |
| New Zealand | Malaysia | Pakistan | South Africa |
| Chile | Egypt | Canada | Korea |
No doubt some competing nations would prefer the revised draw. Certainly those nations deprived of ranking points would like to see the points given to them. With the Executive Board decision to have Junior World Rankings made on the 6th of June did those at the coalface have time to consider in depth the impact Covid had on teams who qualified before the draw was announced on the 24th?
Although it is unlikely to result in any immediate changes it shows how the Pandemic continues to give administrators headaches.
Tell us what you think.
(Not The Footy Show advises that it has not gone through the same scrutiny with the Women’s Rankings and Junior World Cup Draw).
