On The Surface

When he was elected President of the International Hockey Federation in Dubai in November 2016 Dr Narinder Batra stated in his presentation prior to voting, “I would like to take Hockey across the globe, extend the boundaries.” He went on to say “if you want to grow and you want Hockey to remain in the Olympics hockey has to spread, and nowadays everything is calculated in terms of how much is your viewership, how much you earn out of it, which I call reach and revenue. Reach means expand your boundaries. We can’t restrict ourselves to Top 10 or 12, it has to be spread, and spread across the globe. That is when your reach will increase.”

Dr Batra, who is a wily politician was clearly linking his presentation into the FIH’s Hockey Revolution, which had been launched two years earlier in October 2014 in Morocco. The “four big goals” announced were: “Develop innovating and exciting entertainment events, increase degree of professionalism in the sport, build a recognised powerful image for hockey and generate millions more followers around the world.”

Judging by the figures quoted alongside the announcement of a new online partner in NAGRA at the end of May this year, that last goal would look to have been achieved. (Away From The Numbers) The CEO of the FIH Thierry Weil announced that the game has “more than 30 million participants.” They also claimed that the sport had two billion fans.

Yet when Dr Batra was elected President of the FIH it was stated at Congress that there were 139 member nations of the International body. In 2020, according to the FIH’s own website there are only 136 Member nations.

So the figures quoted at he time of the NAGRA announcement took many in the game by surprise. In fact former international Todd Williams went to Twitter to share the article from which he believed the FIH had garnered the figures, and The Reverse Stick Podcast too looked at the article in detail. The article in question was headed Top 10 Most Popular Sports In The World (Updated 2020). You read the article which places Hockey in fourth spot and it states, “Global Fan Base and Audience: As mentioned above hockey has more than 2 billion fans in the world. These fans include both the fans of field hockey as well as ice hockey.”

Field Hockey and Ice hockey are two very different sports, and have in many cases very different fans. So why would an International Sporting body quote such figures? To meet a Key Performance Indicator put forward by the board? To get a financially beneficial deal across the line?

If you ask anyone involved in the game they will all have opinions as to why the sport has not grown as much as it should have. In an era where sport is more about entertainment, this is a sport that should be flourishing, as it has it all: skill, goals, fit and articulate athletes, and excitement. As one journalist recently stated it does however need more “bad boys.” In other words players fans love to hate, players with character and passion that frequently bubbles over.

One of the issues that has held the sport back, but at the same time has in fact pushed it ahead is the surface on which the game is played. This was highlighted as a major issue at the FIH Congress in 2018.

The CEO, Theirry Weil stated in Delhi “At the latest in Paris 2024 hockey will no longer be played on turf with water.” He then added “Now we will have to work together with manufacturers for turf, ball and shoes to bring you a new experience equal to what we know today on water”.

Turf manufacturers were asked to come up with an alternative surface with the same playing qualities, but without water, and cheaper, all before the Paris 2024 Games.

Since then we witnessed the drop-in turf used by England Hockey in the FIH Pro League in 2019, where they took a match against New Zealand to a rugby Union stadium and sold out 15,000 seats. This was a credit to all those who worked on the idea, STRI, England Hockey, the FIH, Polytan, Polypipe, Harlequins Rugby and Sport England. There were plans for more games to be played this way in 2020, but the Pandemic put a stop to that.

The artificial turf in hockey came to the fore at the 1976 Olympic Games in Montreal. Many in India have said that the surface was used to stop their dominance in the sport. Yet if you look at India’s performance at the Olympic Games they won six consecutive Gold medals from their first Hockey appearance in 1928 until 1956. In 1960 they lost the final to Pakistan, won again in 1964, and were forced to accept bronze in ’68 and ’72. So was there already a decline beginning to take place? Were the other nations catching up?

The major issue facing Hockey in 1976 was that none of the venues tabled to host the tournament were deemed suitable. The other issue was the climate. There were fears that it would be very difficult to develop a pitch of Olympic Standard made of grass in the time required, and with the Montreal climate. The Mayor of Montreal tabled the idea of an artificial surface. Everyone felt that this was the prefect solution, however the final call was with the FIH.

An exhibition tournament was held on an American Football pitch made of artificial turf in Toronto, and the reports that came back were very positive. The FIH gave the go-ahead for an artificial surface to be used in Montreal at the 1976 Olympic Games.

As these were the first Olympic Games since 1928 in which a team from the sub-continent did not contest the Gold medal match there were understandably conspiracy theories.

Once the tournament was played on artificial turf and the tournament was deemed successful, and as artificial turf at that time was believed to be the way of the future, Hockey embraced it and in time this became the norm.

However this was when it became an issue. The pitches were not, and still are not cheap to create. India may well be an economic powerhouse today, but it wasn’t in the 1980’s and 1990’s. The cost of creating such pitches in India and many other nations was prohibitive and restrictive. The majority of hockey players were playing on grass, and then when selected for representative teams had to switch surface, and learn to adapt.

India won Gold in Moscow in 1980 but many of the top hockey nations boycotted those Games. The women’s game was admitted to the Olympic Games in 1980. In 1984 in Los Angeles, Pakistan claimed Gold in the men’s event and the Netherlands in the women’s. Since then the Olympic Games Hockey has been dominated by the European nations in both tournaments. Australia and Argentina have once each broken that dominance in the Men’s event, and Australia’s Hockeyroos have claimed three Gold medals in the women’s. So it is understandable that the conspiracy theory gained momentum in that era.

In the main the nations that have been victorious have all been economic first tier nations.

Heading into Tokyo 2020 India’s men were now once again being talked about as medal contenders. Their women were also gaining plaudits as a tough team to beat, and one that would cause a few headaches. Without taking anything away from the coaches that have played a key part in the resurgence of Indian Hockey, a great deal of the success has come in parallel to the nation’s economic prosperity. As a result there are more turf pitches in India than ever before.

At the Congress in Delhi on the matter of playing surfaces the FIH said that it would be less restrictive when it came to type of pitch used for tournaments. The key aspect though was all participants in an event had to agree on the proposed surface.

At this point in time is this not the tipping point for the game?

We have Tennis played on all manner of different surfaces and that is what makes the game so appealing to many. As each individual player is forced to adapt to each surface. This in itself is intriguing to fans, as it throws up different winners.

Many who played hockey in the subsequent years after the Montreal Games will recall playing on different types of “all weather pitches.” It was challenging, and a great leveller.

If we look at the ‘Calendar Grand Slam’ in singles Tennis, which is winning all four major tournaments in a calendar year, only Don Budge (1938) and Rod Laver (1962 & 1969) have achieved it for the men, and Maureen Connolly (1953), Margaret Court (1970) and Steffi Graf (1988) for the women. Graf also won the Olympic Gold in that year. This shows how hard it is to adapt to different surfaces.

Even if you move outside of the calendar year, only four players have held all four major titles at the same time, therefore won all four titles back-to-back, they are Novak Djokovic, Steffi Graf, Martina Navratilova and Serena Williams.

At the end of the day who does it benefit having as near as possible the same surface wherever you play in the world? Obviously the conditions surrounding the game differ from country to country, but should the pitch play the same way?

In cricket imagine how many runs the likes of Tendulkar, Kohli, Sir Vivian Richards or Sir Don Bradman would have scored if every pitch was the same!

So would hockey benefit from moving away from the one surface?

Should Hockey in fact change the proviso mentioned, that the type of pitch must be agreed upon by all participants, and simply make it the call of the host nation? The only condition being that the condition of that surface must be of an agreed standard.

The top nations would no doubt not be in favour of such a move as it would close the gap between the them and those below them. Which ultimately has to be a good thing in the long term if you are looking to grow the game? Remember what Dr Batra the now FIH President said in his campaign speech, “We can’t restrict ourselves to Top 10 or 12, it has to be spread.”

Such a radical move would be bound to receive instant push back, but would it to show us who the truly great teams are, as we have seen in Tennis and cricket? Wouldn’t this showcase those nations with the players who have the ability to adapt to different surfaces? As well as the coaches with the ability to employ different tactics in order to combat those surfaces?

Hockey at the moment is heading down a dangerous path whereby the patterns of play employed are becoming extremely similar. Football has become overly tactical and at times sterile. The action, or lack of, is now often defensive-minded and predictable. It has sapped the enjoyment for many fans. Hockey is facing the same risk. Unfortunately it does not have the same global audience as football, and therefore it cannot afford to lose fans. As Dr Batra said in 2016 it all comes down to audience reach. That is what brings in broadcasters and sponsors. So to lose those fans would be catastrophic.

If the playing surface is restricting some nations, not just in terms of hosting events, but also in terms of progressing in the game, your reach is always going to be limited.

With a strong marketing campaign backing up such a move the game could open up to a whole new audience. It would also snuff out the predictability of play that is creeping into the game. We may also see the rise of true superstars, players with the ability to adapt their game to suit all surfaces. Coaches will also be tested as they shuffle personnel due to some players being better suited to certain playing surfaces. Those surfaces in turn may require alternate tactics in order to achieve a winning result.

With talk that the laying of the turf is one of the major stumbling blocks when it comes to the sport’s Olympic future, could this be the way forward?