Less Will Not Mean More in New Hockey Nine’s Format

Imagine waking up to find that all the rules of the road had been scrapped over night. You could drive on either side of the road at whatever speed you liked. Chaos would rule.

The reason we have rules and laws is to give us structure in which to operate. Sadly as we have seen in modern day life our leaders in Politics and Business pay scant regard to laws, rules and regulations and frequently feel that once you reach a certain position they no longer apply. The reason they get away with the breaches is because those who should be monitoring them lack the strength of character to hand out appropriate punishment.

The same applies in sport. The reason we have seen Cricket Australia find itself in its current mess is because it failed to mete out appropriate punishments when required. To be fair Cricket Australia are not alone in that, and none of the National Associations have been helped by the International Cricket Council showing a lack of leadership and being equally, if not more soft-handed.

There are some sports where rule and law changes have been introduced in order to protect the players. In Rugby Union some feel that the changes have gone too far and taken away the very essence of the game.

In Field Hockey in the European Hockey League we recently witnessed a scoreline of 20-10 when KHC Dragons beat Third Rock Rovers in a game where Field Goals were worth 2 goals, as opposed to the regulation one. Not surprisingly this result brought condemnation from Hockey Fans around the globe and pressure for the sport to go back to traditional scoring methods.

In truth this was a freak game of hockey, with the score in real terms being 12-5 to Dragons.

The sad truth is Australians may have to get used to such crazy scorelines as Hockey Australia continue to press ahead with their plan to make the Australian Hockey League a nine-a-side competition with a myriad of changes to the rules, in particular the way teams can score.

For example the first quarter will be a “Powerplay” where goals count double, and we are already going to see a Field Goal worth two! Then if you score a Field Goal there will be the opportunity to score a bonus goal by having an eight second one-on-one with the goalkeeper.

The reason for all these changes are so they “would create ‘celebratory moments.”

This is complete rubbish. In the men’s AHL in 2017 there were 35 matches played and there were 168 goals scored, an average of 4.8 goals per game. As the game is played in quarters that is over a goal every fifteen minute quarter. In the Women’s competition there were 135 goals in 35 matches at an average of just under four goals, 3.54 to be precise. Still almost a goal every quarter. Throw in the excitement of a penalty corner and are there really not enough celebratory moments?

Many will argue that if you have too many goals the celebrations will become more mooted as they tend to lose their relevance unless in a tight match. That is why in football there is an explosion of noise when a team scores in a tight game, as a 1-0 lead in such a game is something to celebrate. Goals do not guarantee those moments, and it is naive in the extreme to believe that.

The question around the Hockey World is why is Hockey Australia, the nation that has produced the world number one men’s team, and the world number five ranked women’s team heading down this path?

The simple answer is money. Running the Australian Hockey League is an expensive exercise. As a result we have seen various formats introduced over the years, a home and away league and all the teams in one place playing over a week. Both cost money in this vast nation and in particular the airfares and accommodation.

In a letter sent to all the clubs participating in the trial format of the game, signed by the ‘Project Manager AHL 2.0, Hockey Australia,’  the signatory actually happens to be the CEO of Hockey Victoria – why is this not being carried out by Hockey Australia rather than a State Body? – he states “This study was conducted by the Australian Sports Commission and a number of recommendations were made which are now being further explored by Hockey Australia and its Member Associations. Most the recommendations are practical and will be quite seamless to implement into the future however what the ‘on field’ product becomes will be one of the most contentious decisions going forward. The research indicates that the 11 a side game in its current form does not deliver enough ‘celebratory moments’ compared with other sports and therefore it is difficulty (sic) to build momentum and off field energy and fan engagement both at a venue and via a broadcast.”

It is very sad to read such a statement. It is sad because it is proof of a sport, or a business failing to promote itself. A clear example of an inability to market itself. It is also sad because it is clear that the ‘research’ carried out by the Australian Sports Commission was like most Government documents skewed to give the results that they wanted. (NTFS has applied for the report under the Freedom of Information act).

Hockey, by failing to medal at the Rio Olympics had its funding slashed under the controversial “Winning Edge” program created by the Australian Sports Commission. You fail to win a medal, no matter the circumstances, you lose funding. If you have no chance of medalling, you lose funding.

To cut the funding of the number one team in the World in most countries would be scandalous. In Australia where only three sports dominate it caused not even a ripple in the media. That funding cut has made it even harder for Hockey Australia to deliver the programs that it was already finding tough to fund, in order to maintain the high standards it has set.

Yet Hockey Australia knew that if it failed to medal, funds would be cut. What did they do to prepare themselves for such an eventuality?

What we are seeing now is a move to offset costs. Reducing the numbers in the AHL is directly linked to reducing the cost of sending so many players to the competition. Yet rather than trying to offset costs surely a positive approach would have been to try and find a way to increase revenue?

In fact it could be argued that the proposed moves are not going to solve the real problem, which is a lack of funds. Hockey Australia may argue that they are thinking outside of the box with this reformatting of the game, but surely where they need to think outside the box is in terms of generating revenue. The crucial goal has to be to make the game sustainable not just at elite level with the Kookaburras and Hockeyroos, but across all levels including the AHL.

In fact this is the very essence of the Hockey Australia Strategic Plan, which says: “It is about hockey and the core purpose of our existence, participation. This means participation in all forms (players, officials, volunteers, umpires, coaches) at community level, through our pathways to the national teams, the Kookaburras and Hockeyroos, and ultimately the success of these teams.” So if it is about participation why would you reduce the number of players in a team?

Maybe they should be following the lead of Scottish Hockey who looked to increase participation by increasing the number of clubs and only charging a pound for all children to play the game. Listen to CEO David Sweetman on our Podcast #44 

The statement in the letter also shows a clear lack of ability to market the game of hockey. It brings into question the whole combination of marketing and communications. What plan is currently in place to package and promote the game?

If the game invests in this area and educates as it promotes the game, then those watching it are more informed and therefore will appreciate the nuances of the game, the skill of the players, as well as their fitness and the pace at which the game is played. If you fail to educate as you promote the game, of course people will not engage with it.

As has been stated previously if some of the rules were simplified or dropped, that too would be a massive tool in assisting those new to the game in understanding what is taking place in front of them. That is the beauty of football, its simplicity.

Equally important is educating the media. We have seen in the coverage of the Commonwealth Games some incredible statements made in some of the match reports by media outlets. Comments that come from a lack of knowledge on the game and the current world scene.

So moving forward do we really want to see the game as it is played globally bastardised purely as a cost-cutting measure but wrapped up as being innovation?

If Hockey Australia are genuine in terms of their consultative process they will share or make available the responses from the Hockey community from their survey that they encouraged people to complete.

The letter states that, “It is also important to note that while these tests are being conducted we as a sport are remaining open minded to where the on-field product lands as we know we need to be bold enough to make a difference.”

Many are questioning whether Hockey Australia is in fact being open-minded on this issue. In their correspondence they are quick to point out that the recommendations have come from the Australian Sport Commission, and are not their own. Are they hiding behind the ASC? Are they aware that these are recommendations, they are not instructions, so do not have to be implemented?

The format being proposed looks to be one in which the game’s governing body is passing on the fiscal responsibility of running the AHL to the various states. The new competition is, we are told, going to consist of State based Franchises, and will see teams playing home and away over a five week season. Straight away that format implied that not all states would be part of the AHL.

Then comes the sucker punch, each state must pay $575,000 over four years to participate. This equates to $143,750 a year to be a part of the league. Clearly some states are going to struggle to find such funds, and not just in these economic times, but in any times.

Tasmania has already withdrawn stating that they would have to increase fees locally to help fund their Men’s and Women’s teams participating. There is no doubt that others will follow.

The reduction of players and the reduction of teams is sure to have an impact on the national teams. As essentially it is going to reduce the talent pool from which the national squads are picked. While most nations are looking to increase their talent pool, Australia will be reducing theirs, that can only have dire consequences in the long term.

Surely at some point common-sense must prevail and someone on the Board will wake up and question whether there is the right balance within the organisation to be able to promote the game and achieve the goals that they set in their strategic plan 2014-2018, which was to grow participation and become a sport that only relied 50% on funding from the Government. With one Media person and two in marketing, is that enough to raise the profile and understanding of the game?

Matt Favier was appointed the CEO of Hockey Australia in June 2017. Ironically he was the man behind the controversial “Winning Edge” program, one that now sees Hockey suffering from having less funding due to failing to medal in Rio.

When his appointment was announced he stated that he had chosen to leave the Australian Sports Commission and his role as a Director at the AIS because “In this type of leadership role you need to stay relevant. You can lose touch with the coalface of sport and I don’t want to do that.’’

If he truly wants to stay in touch with the ‘coalface’ he may be wise to put the brakes on his plans for the AHL. For many at the coalface do not like the proposed plans. In fact another quote from that time may come back to haunt him.

“Winning Edge is as much about pathways and sustainable, repeatable success as it is about the investment allocations to individual sports.’’ he told the Australian newspaper. Surely the same applies to Hockey in Australia.

Hockey Australia is as much about pathways and sustainable repeatable success as it is about the investment allocations to sections of the sport. One of these being the Australian Hockey League. This is the stepping stone for many players to become a part of the elite programs that have given the Kookaburras and the Hockeyroos so much success.

Australia does not need another unique hybrid game, it already has AFL. What is being proposed is that. It is time to market and promote what we have. A Marketing plan for the game, will help grow it and with that growth will come sponsors. To change the rules as is being suggested will simply result in mayhem, and who knows what long term damage it could cause the game in this country.