In sport when you are at the top you know the only way is down. If you are on an unbeaten, run you know that one day that run has to come to an end.
There is understandably a great deal of soul-searching going on in Australian hockey after both teams bowed out at the Paris Olympics in the quarter finals.
For the Kookaburras this has meant they finish in 6th place. This is their lowest finish, and a position that they have only ever finished in twice before in 17 appearances at the Olympic Games. The first was in 1960 in Rome, and the second was in 2016 in Rio de Janeiro.
For the Hockeyroos the drought continues. Since winning gold in Sydney in 2000 the women’s team has not made the semi finals to be in with a shout of winning a medal. They had their fifth finish in fifth place and have had one sixth place finish in Rio de Janeiro.
What should be a concern for the Hockey fraternity in Australia is the fact that this is only the third time that neither team has won an Olympic medal since the women started competing at the Olympic Games in 1984: Australia boycotted the hockey in 1980.
The first occasion was in 1984 where both teams finished 4th. The men losing their bronze medal match and in the women’s competition Australia having to have a penalty shoot out with a rested USA team straight after their final game with the Gold medal winning Dutch. In those times the women’s competition was a league affair with every team playing each other.
The second time was in Rio de Janeiro in 2016, and now again in 2024. So this has occurred twice in 8 years, after a gap of 32 years.
Let us say first and foremost that winning an Olympic medal is not a given, no one has a right to one. Secondly they are extremely hard to win, as this writer covered in “Australia’s Hockey Grail.”
However, understandably many are asking where is the sport currently at? Is this an indication that Australia has fallen behind the pack?
Some have been critical saying that the reason for the Men’s teams in these Games failing to medal was a failure to make changes to personnel.
Australia has only won one Olympic Gold medal in Men’s hockey in 2004, in Athens. In that Gold medal winning team only four players remained from the team that contested the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney.
Australia has won four silver medals in the men’s competition in 1968, 1976, 1992 and 2021. In 1968 there were nine players in the 15 player squad who played in 1964. In 1976 seven of the 16 player squad had played at the 1972 Games. In 1992 there were six players left over from 16-man squad in 1988, while in Tokyo in 2021 the same number of players had played in 2016, seven.
When one looks at the Games in which Australia has finished 6th there were 5 players remaining in 1960 who had played in 1956. In 2016 there were 10 players of the 16 who played in 2012, and in 2024 there were 7 of the 18 who played in 2021. So it would appear that there is little correlation here.
When one looks at the women’s team and their three Gold medal wins, in 1988 there were just five players who played in Los Angeles four years earlier left in the squad. From Barcelona in ’92 to the gold medal winning side of 96 there were 8 players kept, and the same number from ’96 to 2000 when they won gold again.
Australian Hockey is in essence still an amateur sport. It is heavily reliant on Government funding, and apart from a few lucrative sponsorship deals has never been able to cash in on the demographic that plays the game, or the international success the teams have consistently achieved.
Government funding is reliant on the National teams performing at key international tournaments. The Hockeyroos failure to medal since 2000 has seen their funding virtually dry up. Leading into Tokyo it was between $250–300 a week, after failing to medal it is believed that dropped to around $150 per week.
One has to feel for the Hockeyroos, as once again they topped their pool and then bowed out in the quarter finals, this time in controversial circumstances. Most hockey fans will agree that they have a right to feel hard done by.
So was it the change of format that has scuppered Australia’s medal chances?
The quarter final format was only introduced in 2016 at the Rio Olympic Games. The reason was alleged to be to give other nations an outside chance of winning a medal.
Had it been as it was prior to the Quarter Finals being introduced the Hockeyroos would have been semi-finalists in 2021 and 2024. They would have missed out in 2016 as they were third in their pool.
In Rio the men also finished third in their pool so would not have made the semi finals. They would also have missed out in Paris as they were third again. Only in Tokyo did they finish in the top two which would have seen them progress to the medal matches.
Has the introduction of the quarter finals thrown the Olympic Tournament on its head? Since its introduction only once has a team that did not finish in the top two of their group won a medal, and that was in 2016 when Argentina who were third claimed Gold. In 2024 the Netherlands were second in their group to Germany and beat them in the final, but they were still in the top two.
In the Women’s competition it has made a difference. in 2016 Germany were third and took home a bronze medal. In 2020 Argentina who were third in their pool and won silver, while Great Britain who were third in theirs claimed bronze.
In Paris, China were fourth in their pool but contested the final and only lose in a shoot-out. All of the other teams in the medal matches finished first or second in their pool.
So while both teams can bemoan the introduction of the Quarter-finals one can see that it has not in fact impacted the outcomes that much.
Another issue that may be much closer to the reason why Australia has struggled is the fact that with the introduction of the FIH Pro League the national teams now no longer play in other tournaments. They would have had the Commonwealth Games but that was cancelled. The only tournament that they have participated in since Tokyo in 2021 was the World Cup in 2022. Here the men topped their pool won their quarter final but lost their semi-final and the bronze medal match. The women also topped their pool, won their quarter final and lost their semi-final, but did claim bronze.
Anyone who has played at a decent level will tell you that tournament play is very different to playing in a league, as you have to ensure that you peak at the right time, as well as learn how to close out a game. Has this lack of tournament play been detrimental to Australia?
Once again one has to ask where are the benefits in staying in the Pro League? (Acting In The Best Interests?)
The Kookaburras were regular participants in the Sultan Azlan Shah Cup, which was good practice for tournaments. Since entering the Pro League in 2019 they have not participated in the tournament, no team in the Pro League has, which is sad for such a long running event. Certainly the late Sultan who was President of the Asian Hockey Federation for 17 years, and a member of the FIH Executive Board, would be very sad to see what has happened to the tournament named in his honour.
Even when it came to the Oceania Olympic qualifiers these were contested between just Australia and New Zealand on a best of three format. With New Zealand’s men struggling at the Paris Olympics, and the women failing to qualify after playing for Bronze in 2016, one has to ask is there much life left in Oceania as a Confederation? It definitely has less say in the affairs of World hockey than it had in the past. Certainly if these two teams are to be competitive there has to be more co-operation in terms of hosting events to lift the sport and the national teams in this region.
Many will argue that both would be better off playing in Asia, like the Australian football teams. However, the lack of a voice on the FIH Executive Board for this region would be the one thing that would hold them back from doing so.
If it was about lifting the game and attracting new sponsors such a move needs serious consideration, as it would expose the national teams to more international tournaments.
Outside of the Pro League there have been a few test matches between Australia and Malaysia, India and China. The last two coming down to Australia to play this year, and both clearly learned a great deal, as India beat the Kookaburras in their group match – the first time at an Olympic Games for 52 years – and China eliminated the Hockeyroos in the quarter finals. Hindsight they say is perfect vision, looking back now was it such a good idea to host these two teams in an Olympic year?
An added worry is the bad publicity that the sport has attracted at the past three Olympic Games. All three incidents involving hockey have regrettably also involved Australia.
The Australian men’s teams were involved with the famous Dawn Fraser incident in Tokyo back in 1964, an event that many view now as harmless high jinks. Two of the past three incidents have led to players being arrested, which at a time when the sport is fighting for air time and sponsorship, as well as Government investment is irresponsible. The incident in Tokyo, breaking the strict quarantine protocols to go and buy beer was foolish and may have been harmless but showed a disrespect to their Japanese hosts and how they were feeling about the Covid pandemic.
To err is human to forgive divine. While the individuals concerned are not going to pay for the error of their ways forever, the impact that it could have on the sport is a serious concern. While one can forgive the individuals concerned one has to ask why is this happening?
These individuals represent one of Australia’s proudest teams in terms of tradition and legacy. They also represent a nation on the field of play at events such as the Olympic Games. It is an honour, and with that honour comes responsibility. The Australian Olympic Committee must no doubt be becoming a little frustrated at the one sport being a repeat offender, and having to explain their actions to the rest of the world and the media.
Clearly something is wrong within the sport for these situations to arise. It is important that the Board and the Management ascertain why this is happening. They need to take action quickly, but will the powers that be in Hockey make such a move? It definitely needs to.
To many on the outside this once great national team appears to be losing much of its aura. The belief systems that made it a great international team appear to be being eroded. If Australia is to return to being one of the top teams they cannot ignore the situation from a playing perspective, or the off field issues that are dragging the sport down.
With earth due to be turned on the new high performance centre for the sport in Perth in the coming months, one has to hope that the performance in Paris and the incident after elimination does not cause those in Government to revisit their huge investment. Don’t be surprised if they do not request a deeper insight into how the sport operates and pay closer interest as to how it is run moving forward.
Thank you for your comment James.
Ths is one of the risks with centralised programs, often those outside the “contracted” players rarely are pulled up when playing well and when they desrve to be.
It has been a great shame that a decision was made for the men to not play in the local competition this year, and many were restricted last year. Many of the players want to play. They want to play in club competitions where the competition is not as intense, and they can enjoy the game.
The point youy make is a valid one, would the sport be better served having players come into camps prior to major tournaments?
Most states have an institute of sport where the players fitness levels could be monitored, however in some sports they did not in fact do this to the standard needed for international competition. So one can understand some hesitation.
Certainly all options should be discussed and evaluated in my opinion, as we want the best outcomes for the players, the sport, and our national teams.
Can’t help but think that having only a relatively small squad of players relocate to Perth in what is still an amateur sport may lead to a lack of depth, as many of these players in Perth rarely play a club game and those just outside the squad don’t get a look in as they are not there. Do any other (amateur) national sports teams use this model? A drop in funding will not help.
John, thank you for commenting. Yes one feels for the Hockeyroos as that decision really could have made a big difference to not only their Olympics but the program. Many do not realise the far-reaching ramifications of such a decisiuon, they are far greater than simnply a loss.
I have to say I am not a fan of the video referral. It worked initially but I feel it needs specialits in the role. The suggestion was in the past to use umpires who have to retire from being on the pitch who have been outstanding and use their knowledge and experience. At present it is not enhanciong the game.
Again I have to agree with you that the High Performance Director role needs to be reviewed. In Hockey Australia’s own review into the Hockeyroos program it stated that they had to be where the players were, but nothing has changed, so why have a review if you are not going to listen to the recommendations?
Sadly, it is not just Hockey where we have witnessed Board members from one sport attending and happily taking photos of themselves at other sports. Why do many need to be there? Why would you have a board meeting during an Olymnpic Games when airfares and accommodation are at a premium? Is that being fiscally responsible? If you are going to have one, then hopefully once the meeting is over those who stay are footing their own bill and that is declared in the minutes.
Thanks again for raising some good points.
As you state two sixth place finishes in three Olympiads is a fall from grace for Australia, and personally I think shows that there are problems with the program.
The women, we saw leading up to Tokyo how they have had issues for years. To be fair I think that they showed they are on the right track, but appear to lack depth. Who knows better umpiring and they would have possibly had a very different outcome. If the Video umpires are going to make such howling errors I say get rid of it in our sport. What is the point?
The administration of the sport is where I would start the investigation. Has Hockey the right individuals on its board and the right people employed in its key positions? Certainly the previous CEO had no idea and I am not convinced the current one does either.
However, the High Performance Director role is the one that needs to be looked at closely. Have we had the right people in that role in the past 8 years? What does a guy from rowing know about top level hockey? The results in Paris may answer that question. Why is this roile still based in Melbourne while the athletes are in Perth?
These are obvious questions that the board should have addressed. How many of them were in Paris? It was noted that the head of Oceania who incidentally is employed by another sport was in Paris for an FIH Board meeting, but remained on at the games and was happy snapping photos of himself at other sports, and not the one he was representing. Who paid for this trip? If it was Oceania then once again it explains a great deal.
To me the sport is declining because we have the wrong people in key roles. Unless that changes be prepared for similar results.