They say perception is reality.
Which means that people form an impression of something, and then no matter what the truth may be that is how people see that thing. Once such a situation arises it is very hard to shake off.
A random comment made to this writer by a sports follower at the weekend was a prime example of how such perceptions can be damaging. The comment was ” What has happened to the Australian Hockey team, they used to be the best in the world?” Despite the response that they are probably still one of the top four or five teams in the world this individual replied “No they are not. I heard the commentator say that they are ranked six in the world. As for the women, well everyone knows that they are toxic.”
The ‘toxic’ reference to the Hockeyroos was clearly a legacy of the news coverage from three years ago, in which certain members of the squad spoke out about a system that had been faltering for a very long time. (Paying a Price For The Past)
Paul Gaudoin stepped down as coach, and to many was the fall guy for a system that had simply not been fixed for a number of years. A review into the program took place and was scathing in its findings. There were 29 recommendations made to the Board of Hockey Australia. Unbelievably those on the Board whose remit was the High Performance area of the game did not see a reason to step down, even though this had happened on their watch.
New Coaches and support staff were brought in and an Implementation Working Group was created to consider the recommendations made by the review panel, develop an implementation plan, and give an oversight as to that plan and a timeframe within which the changes will be implemented. There has been no public update as to whether these deadlines were met, and which recommendations were implemented within the High Performance program.
Unfortunately at the delayed Tokyo Olympic Games the Hockeyroos finished without a medal again. The drought continuing since their last medal in 2000 at the Sydney Olympic Games. The team bowing out in the quarter finals to India, after being undefeated in their pool.
The ramifications of this failure to medal are now coming home to roost. Ironically the result of the Winning Edge Program put in place by the former Hockey Australia CEO who was in charge for Tokyo, Matt Favier, from his time as head of the Australian Institute of Sport. His funding model was based on success, in simple terms if you failed to medal or were unlikely to medal at the Olympic Games your government funding was reduced or stopped.
Favier’s appointment at Hockey was a strange one. Yet it all came down to the politics of sport, rather than whether he was the right man for the job. The Australian Sports Commission to which Favier was strongly aligned had been behind the challenge to John Coates Presidency of the Australian Olympic Committee and the relationship once Coates was re-elected became ugly. When Cam Vale resigned as CEO of Hockey Australia, Favier was parachuted in. (The Resignation The Sport Had to Have) It is fair to say that on his watch things did not go well.
Post Tokyo the Hockeyroos lost their Government funding. Suddenly it became optional whether the players wished to remain in Perth with the High Performance Program. If they wished to return home to their home states they could.
Now the onus is being placed on the clubs to try and ‘help out.’ They are being asked to pay the International players representing their club, due to the fact that there is no money in the pot from Hockey Australia.
This has not been thought through. The potential problem that is likely to arise from such a structure is that the clubs, as the employer will opt not to release players, or will request compensation if their player is injured while on international duty. Players will be placed in a very difficult position whereby they will have to choose between club and country. Many will no doubt feel a loyalty to their club for paying them, and will start to cherrypick when they are available for international duty. A situation that often leads to resentment, when a talented player comes in for the major tournaments replacing those who have played all the other games.
To add to the team’s woes the naming rights sponsor Ausdrill chose not to renew their partnership with the Hockeyroos, and allegedly the new shirt front sponsor is playing considerably less than their predecessor. Is this due to the failure to medal or is it due to the negative publicity and the tag that appears to have stuck? It is remarkable that the ‘toxic’ tag is still associated with the team by some almost three years on.
Clearly a marketing and promotional strategy needs to be created and quickly to restore the brand to the level it was before.
As for the men’s team, the Kookaburras, they have not been outside the top five of Hockey’s world rankings since 1975.
What do world rankings mean? Does anyone pay attention to them? There is no doubt that world rankings mean far more in individual sporting events, such as tennis, squash, boxing and the like. However, in team sports they also can have a huge impact on a team, as frequently the draw for a World Cup or an Olympic Games is based on the World Rankings.
Although the International Hockey Federation carried out the draw for the 2023 Men’s World Cup in September 2022 just after they had announced their latest World rankings, the draw was based on the World rankings from June.
It is fair to say that the Ranking system needed to be reviewed. In 2019 The FIH opted to change the World Ranking points system. The new system was we were advised going to be a “dynamic ranking system that better reflects current performance” and “encourages playing international matches.”
The sport would now witness a match-based World Ranking model based on Elo Rating system, originally invented for use in chess and adopted by a number of other sports. Now in every match, the number of points gained by one team is exactly matched by the number of points lost by the other. In addition, teams win more points for beating teams ranked above them, and therefore teams lose more points for losing to a team ranked below them.
The outcome of this has been to see nations opting to play International matches but not have them recognised as International Test matches, so that they do not lose World Ranking points. Teams are now playing “training matches.” This was a similar ruse used by some countries participating in the Pro League to be able to play other nations playing in the same competition, as their participation agreements prohibited them playing each other outside of this competition, as understandably it could affect interest and ticket sales in the Pro League.
The problem with the system as it stands is currently the only teams playing international matches regularly are the nine men’s and nine women’s teams in the Pro League competition, so they are the only ones swapping ranking positions.
What we are seeing now are a number of nations using the Pro League to blood young players and see how they fare on the International stage. These teams are looking to the future, both in terms of next year’s Olympic Games, and also their squad of players post the Olympic Games in the build up to the next World Cup. Many of the coaches will tell you that at this point in time results are secondary, as it is all about preparation for those two key tournaments.
Australia is currently also hampered by having a number of their International players playing professionally in the Netherlands. These players understandably chasing payment for playing the sport they have dedicated much of their lives too. Their absence is now being felt in more ways than they could imagine, not just on the field of play, but once the game is over. As if Australia loses in the Pro League their World Ranking slips.
With World Ranking points being awarded for every international match played, can any stall really be held in the World Rankings at this point in time, with players absent and teams building towards a major tournament?
Clearly to the average sports fan it can. The perception being that Australia is slipping from its place of dominance. What is a bigger concern is whether those who allocate the funding are being kept appraised of the situation, as well as sponsors.
This is more crucial than ever before, as such a drop could ultimately have an impact on the funding and sponsorship deals that the Kookaburras receive in the future. If that were to happen what is the contingency plan? Clearly there was no such plan in place with the Hockeyroos, otherwise money would still have been available to pay them once the funding stopped.
Hopefully the senior management and the Board are keeping everyone who puts money into the sport appraised as to the strategy at play with a view to the Olympic Games and the FIH World Cup, or suddenly the sport could find itself in a very dangerous place.
Good governance is not just managing current situations, but planning ahead and seeing possible situations that may arise, and putting in place solutions should the worst eventuate. In recent years Hockey has proven not to be very adept when it comes to forward planning, hopefully that is no longer the case, or there will be a great deal more pain for the sport in the years to come.
