In 2013 the FIH gave birth to hockey’s own Frankenstein’s monster. Contrary to the monster created by dr. Frankenstein this one has a name. We call it Hockey5s. Very much parallel to the fictional character from book and movies, I’m convinced some of you will have grown to like the monster. As I’m sure the monster will do some good along the way. Though I fear, as in the story, in the end the monster will come back to destroy its creator. And about Hockey5s being as ugly as Frankenstein’s monster… Well, let’s just say “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” 😉
It started after the Singapore Youth Olympic Games
Some 10 years ago the marketeers from the IOC, supposedly the organisation guarding the Olympic movement, thought they needed another event. They invented the Youth Olympic Games (YOG). The first edition was in 2010 in Singapore and hockey got invited to join the party. Twelve U18 teams (6 boy + 6 girls) participated in our traditional 11-a-side game. Following Singapore however the IOC declared they wanted more nations to be in the next edition of the YOG. However the allotted quota of players involved could not be raised. So they asked the FIH to come up with a so-called “short format” of the game (= less players/team) to allow for more nations involved without having to accommodate more athletes.
The FIH considered the existing short format we today call indoor hockey. But in the end, for whatever reason, they preferred to go for a new outdoor format. Without much consultation with those involved in playing the game (players, coaches, umpires) the FIH administrators created hockey’s very own Frankenstein’s monster. They introduced it as Hockey5s to the 2014 YOG in China’s Nanjing. Following the Nanjing YOG the administrators of IOC and FIH padded each other on the back for a job well done. They had more nations involved with 10 boys and 10 girls teams. The stadiums were full – it’s China, so I doubt these were paying spectators. And the public did not needed to know anything about hockey in order to follow the game. But, apart from the administrators, a lot of coaches, players and hockey-media were less enthusiastic about the newly invented Hockey5s.
Next came the Buenos Aires YOG
Following Nanjing the FIH staged a technical review of the format together with their partner Loughborough University. At a two-day workshop in 2015 elite junior players (international and England Hockey League level) participated in a series of scenarios using different variations of field size (width & depth), ball size, number of players, shooting zones, challenges and officiating. International officials, coaches and participating players were surveyed after each scenario. The outcome of the review was to reduce the size of the field to encourage more tactical construction of play – 1v1, 2v1, pressing, principles of play etc. It was felt the previous pitch size was encouraging too much long ball passing and long shots.
Additionally the IOC allowed for extra teams at the Buenos Aires YOG in 2016, in order to guarantee the host nations participation. So we had 12 teams for boys and the same for girls participating in Argentina. Contrary to China, Argentina is a country with a lot of love for and tradition in hockey. Combine this with their passion for sports and free admission to the games and you will not be surprised the hockey event was a successful one in Buenos Aires. I doubt it’s because of the choice for 5s. The review afterwards of this event reintroduces the consideration for a defined shooting zone, such as the D or circle as we know it in the traditional game of hockey. Though here it would most likely become the halfway line.
Some Hockey5s facts
Field/court sizes
Some consideration to the size was made at the initial design stage – the size of the Hockey5s pitch for the Nanjing YOG was 45.5m x 55m (half a full size pitch). It changed to 48m x 31.76m. I can’t help but wonder why people need to make these things so complicated. Just go for the same pitch size as the standard size for indoor hockey you would think.
Elements similar to Indoor hockey
Structure: sideboards, short format (space, time and players), even though with 2x 10 minutes 5s is even shorter.
Gameplay: similar game structures to when indoor was briefly 5v5 and in moments of 6v6 when a player is suspended, use of boards for closing space and deflected passing.
Elements similar to 11-a-side outdoor
Structure: environment (outdoor), surface (artificial turf, grass, tarmac, concrete…), ball, all playing equipment (stick, type of glove)
Gameplay: hits, lifts, drags, flicks allowed.
Differences to both indoor and 11-a-side
Structure: End boards, space (48m x 32m), less space per player than 11s (228.5 sqm/pp) but more than indoor (80 sqm/pp) – Hockey5s has 152 sqm/pp, time of play is only 2x 10 minutes
Gameplay: Shoot from anywhere, challenges rather than PC’s or PS’s. High rebound, particularly the end boards, can create unique patterns of play. The game has less build up, with a higher number of turnovers. The type of boards used will affect the tactical options available – high vs low rebound.
Where has Frankenstein’s monster been seen?
According to the FIH, out of 137 hockey playing nations affiliated, 67 (= 100% in the pie chart) reported domestic and/or international participation for Hockey5s in their survey from 2018. Almost 40% of these 67 nations were European. The number of participants in each nation is unknown. Nor do we know if any of these leagues or events are structural or just a couple of one-off events. We have no idea of knowing if any of these players introduced to Hockey5s made the transition to 11-a-side hockey, stayed in Hockey5s or has moved on to yet another sport. Nor do we know how many dedicated Hockey5s pitches exist around the world. So basically, apart from the number of nations who dabbled with Hockey5s at one time or another – a rather meaningless statistic – we know very little on how this new format has contributed to hockey so far.
So until the FIH starts collecting more useful and reliable information from their national associations, we’re just guessing and making decisions based upon assumptions and personal impressions… But as a part of the Hockey2024 plan this should be improving soon… We hope.
One of the most surprising elements in the story of this particular Frankenstein’s monster was the decision by the FIH to have some of their FIH Open Series events in 2018 being played as Hockey5s. The FIH Open Series is one of the official pathways to the Olympic Games or World Cup. Serious stuff, not just some invitational or promotional event. So now we have countries, without the means to set up our standard game of hockey, first play Hockey5s as a part of an official 11-a-side event. While following this they will either have to forfeit or change everything. Because the next step, the FIH Series Finals, is the direct route towards the Olympic or World Cup Qualifiers, still an 11-a-side event… At least for now…
A short SWOT analysis of Hockey5s today
So where do we go following the recent YOG in Buenos Aires? What will be the future of Hockey5s and its impact on hockey? I guess nobody really knows but here is my short version of a SWOT analysis for Hockey5s. SWOT is the acronym for “strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats”. Obviously this is just my take on things, based upon many talks with coaches, players, officials, administrators and all kinds of hockey followers. Feel free to agree or disagree and I’m looking forward to your thoughts & arguments about this. Leave us your comment below…
Strengths
Less players needed
Less space needed
More flexibility… in rules, pitch surfaces & sizes, etc…
More adapted to the possibility of mixed gender events
Shorter “bite-sized” content for media aiming at a public with a short attention spam
Possibly – depending upon exact rules – more goals to celebrate which would make it a more social-media-friendly format
Weaknesses
Boarding all around the pitch is more expensive and more difficult to copy if you have no access to existing infrastructure
More dangerous if hitting is allowed in this smaller pitch and there is no designated scoring zone
Not a real valid pathway to 11-a-side hockey because not enough transferrable skills, especially tactical
Enabling “short attention span” problems, instead of teaching us to remain focused for a longer time
Easier for individuals to make the difference, instead of learning the merit of teamwork
Opportunities
Promotion : using a short format is easier to promote hockey in for example inner cities or at bigger non-sport-related events
Development : using a short format in regions or situations where it’s more difficult to play the real game because of facilities, climate or number of players
Teaching certain technical skills to the youngest players, who benefit from smaller teams in training and games
Threats
If played at a competitive international level it becomes easier for the IOC the replace 11-a-side hockey at the Olympic Games because we will now offer them the same amount of medals or even more if you add a mixed format, with less resources (athletes, time and infrastructure) needed
Resources (financial and other) for FIH, continental and national federations now have to be divided among more formats instead of everything focused on our 1 true sport
Risk of losing funding by governments for 11-a-side hockey projects, now to be divided over multiple formats
Risk of losing media attention and general sports fans because no singular focus on 1 format, the message gets too complex
Risk of losing sponsors for existing hockey events because budgets get diverted to the new (cheaper) kid on the block
So I guess all strengths and opportunities would have been just as valid for the existing short format we today call indoor hockey, instead of Hockey5s…
KISS: keep it simple stupid
So for me… Yes there is value in having a short format of the game. But only when used for promotion, for development and education. It becomes a problem if the short format goes competitive. Even though the indoor short format has created its own niche as a competitive format as well.
So, if you must, bring on the development programs for those regions where Hockey5s is easier to implement. Bring on the commercial entities wishing to organise exhibition events on a local, national or international scale. But when an official sporting body, such as the FIH, starts promoting it as a recognised (inter)national competitive format, the shit 💩 will hit the fan…
Today we know and promote two formats around the world of sport. The standard Olympic format of 11-a-side outdoor and the indoor short format. Adding a third competitive format will only add to the confusion. Let’s not complicate things… The indoor variation for the short format, or Super Sixes (6s), already has a lot of tradition and legacy around the world. It has proven added value and offers other countries a taste of success. Think Iran taking home a bronze medal in the most recent indoor world cup.
Where is the added value of adding a third format to the mix? Can anyone tell me one thing Hockey5s accomplished that could not have been done with both existing formats? Let’s keep things simple and only make changes that add value…
I understand change is inevitable in the world today. Sports and hockey are no exception to the rule. I do also believe there is merit in preserving tradition. Making sure the original values and unique properties of the sport are respected throughout these changes.
Possibly in 10 years time I will have become a copy/paste of the old Indian or Pakistani hockey fans who still mourn the demise of hockey on natural grass. Moaning and whining about the so-called loss of hockey skills due to artificial turf and in my case the loss of 11-a-side hockey. Another possibility is my love for sports will by then move on to another sport and I will have lost interest in the game of hockey played as 5s. You can also never rule out the very slim possibility I will have grown accustomed to this Frankenstein’s monster we call Hockey5s. But in all honesty I doubt it… Because when change does not provide progress, it’s just a mistake! Let’s kill Frankenstein’s monster before it comes back to kill us…
The writing has always been on the wall
Have you read some of our other thoughts on the future of hockey? Here are some of our suggestions from last year, related to this topic for you:
In case you prefer to listen to all of this instead of reading about it, check out our podcasts. Search for “Studio Hockey” in your favourite podcast app (Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, ….) or click here to visit this podcast at StudioHockey.com.
Great read Ernst and I fully agree with you. I see benefits in promotionele of hockey in Area’s where there is no or hardly hockey. In those area indoor hockey will do, look st Scandinavia, Eastern Europe, Iran, but also Austria and Switzerland. In Asian countries indoor hockey is more or less unknown but absolutely an option with potential. Hopefully the countries with a strong indoor hockey team will like to participate in hockey 11 smaller step from 6 to 11. The tactics have proven to be succesfull in hockey 11. Reason why many countries are now also investing in indoor hockey as a development project to improve your basic skills.
These 2 formats are sufficient to play and develop hockey. It also makes sense. Which leading hockey country has a hockey 5 league? What will be the added value for their hockey 11? Nevertheless all countries like to participate in the Youth Olympics and play hockey 5 only for that reason without a league just with a group of hockey 11 players they focus shortly on this Hype play the tournament and return to normal.
I too see the monster and it could easily happen that the monster will eat us.
Again for promotion okay but not for serious tournaments like international championship. It’s allready a huge mistake that it replaced hockey 11 from the Youth Olympics. What’s next???
I wondered why Indoor Hockey wasn’t selected for the Youth Olympics. I think you missed a Pro of Hockey5s — one doesn’t have to waste valuable training and playing time with developing penalty corner specialists and penalty corner execution routines. I have not witnessed “scoring from anywhere” creating dangerous hitting. It is SOOOOooo easy for goalkeepers to stop a 30-meter shot. I like a 6v6 hybrid of 11v11+Hockey5s+Indoor Hockey that I developed (Super6s.com) because it is easier and less costly to setup and can be played with fewer people yet support more people playing at the same time on a standard outdoor pitch (22 in a 11v11 game or split the pitch into three and have 36 people playing 6v6 in three cross-field games). Another Pro is a far greater number of touches and decisions in outdoor Super6s than 11v11. Watch some teenagers play 11v11 and there can be two or three kids who never touch the ball during the game.
Thanks Cris.
Personally I would not consider abandoning the penalty corner a good thing. I love it, as something very specific and unique to our sport. But I know some see this different. Usually I tend to counter they only see it that way because they were too lazy training set pieces to perfection and only wanted to play games 😉
I will take a look at your super6s set up. But for 5s I’m not so sure it would add up to more involvement in the game for all.It would seem logical although I assume in 5s it would also be a lot easier for 1 stronger individual to do it all by himself. In 11v11 you need your team. But no data exists so far to back this up… or deny it either.
I don’t want to see the penalty corner eliminate from field hockey, however, it does require the development of special skills (not used at other times during the game), is governed by a special set of rules (not used at other times during the game), limits participation, and stalls open play. So, for beginners (players and umpires) its a pretty high hurdle to have to cross. Think about it. Let’s say you’re beginning to teach beginners. Your first game is 5 practices away. Each practice is 90 minutes, including warm up, basic physical activities, teaching universal skills (hit, push, pass, receive, “get open”, how to defend), and cool down. That’s 450 minutes (7.5 hours). Now .. allocate time to prepare to attack on penalty corners and, allocate time to prepare to defend on penalty corners. How much time do you think you need? Now, consider training new umpires. How much time has to be given to prepare so that the rules governing penalty corners are understood and penalty corners can be applied correctly for a part of the game that — basically — involves 3 players (inserter, striker, and goalkeeper) before it devolves into open play? Then, what about social games? Do you really need a scoring circle and penalty corners for social games? Maybe, in fact, the social game benefits from not having to have a field that has to be marked with a circle and isn’t played with penalty corners. I believe that there is a version of the game that can benefit organizers, players, and umpires that doesn’t include the a scoring zone and the penalty corner.
Hi there, thanks for your hockey podcast. Appreciated.
I live in India so let me give you a perspective from here. I have been following hockey since 1984, so I can claim some knowledge of the sport.
I make the following points for your consideration-
1 Hockey is dying in India. It really is. The Hockey India League has not been held since 2017 because of poor spectator and sponsor interest. The interest has declined so rapidly in the heartbeat of Indian hockey, north India especially Punjab that almost no tournaments are held there any more. Instead the entire focus of hockey has shifted to eastern Indian states of Orissa and Jharkhand, which is the only place where hockey still has interest.
2 Despite the decline in popularity, India still supplies nearly 60% of the advertising revenue of world hockey. Once that begins to decline, it will be hard to find money for things like organizing events and promoting youth hockey.
3 I have watched the youth Olympics hockey tournament and more recently hockey 5s nationals and I was left impressed.
The play is exciting and complicated things for casuals, like penalty corners have been discarded. The essence of hockey which is dribbling and passing is still there. This is unlike fustsal, which differs greatly from football because heading the ball is much rarer, and heading is an essential part of football.
In addition one can get 3 hockey 5s artificial turfs out of the material used for 1 turf in hockey 11’s, and half the number of players. This is important for a developing country like India.
Hockey 5s has the potential to bring hockey players the kind of money that they deserve for all the effort they put in the sport. I really believe that with the right kind of promotion hockey 5s will once again bring to hockey the kind of attention it had in the past in India.
Thanks for your perspective. You certainly make some good points. Let me offer you my view on things, because I too claim some knowledge of the sport… 😉
1. Hockey is dying in India, you say. I will certainly not claim to be any kind of expert of India and hockey in your country, but to my knowledge hockey has never been played all over India. It has always been a sport for some specific regions. These regions will shift through time because of a variety of reasons. I doubt hockey has ever been truly the sport for all of India. Because in my opinion the criteria for this is not so much how many fans or followers the sport claims to have. The main criterium is how many people actually play (!) the sport. Fans and followers will only be loyal to your sport if you can offer them a good domestic league with local teams to support, for multiple decades so the fandom can be passed on through generations. Do this and you will have fans for life… Don’t do this and fans will flock from sport to sport based upon the latest hype. The HIL had potential… Very unfortunate a lack of vision and management made it go under after a promising start.
2. Based upon which evidence do you claim India still supplies 60% of advertising revenue? Not saying you could not be right, just don’t think there is reliable data out there to support any claim regarding advertising. But what good is Indian ad money for the game of hockey worldwide if partners like Star Sports just break existing agreements because of political powerplays not going the way of certain people at one time. If advertisers are not reliable, what use are they? The FIH at the moment relies heavily on IOC money, less on advertisers. What advertising revenue has ever been used to promote youth hockey worldwide or in India?
3. Honestly I was not impressed, quite the contrary. Hockey already had a short format of the game, which does not need artificial grass for a surface at all and which is a lot closer (technically & tactically) to the real game of hockey than the monstrosity of 5s. The essence of hockey for me is teamwork and perseverance. Those are values in sport that add value to all who play (and even just watch) the game beyond the world of sports, also in actual life. Hockey5s, in my opinion (and of most renowned coaches I know) offers the possibility for strong individuals to make their mark on the game too much and if you shorten the game that much in time you remove the physical component as well. If you look at the the values in our traditional game of hockey – and these should be the reasons to play the game – they vanish in the game of 5s…
I agree a short format of the game has value in helping to develop the game in certain areas of the world, but the way it is managed today it will not help the game of hockey but kill it instead. India, or the world, doesn’t need 5s to rejuvenate the game of hockey… It needs better management 😉
Thank you so much for your reply. I appreciate your courtesy to reply to a post you made months back. You have raised some very incisive points. Please allow me the chance to respond.
1 Your point about hockey being popular in certain regions of India and not in others is valid. As you put it, decline in interest in some areas and increase in other areas also is true.
However, what concerns me is how fewer and fewer people overall in India are following hockey. There is overall decline in participation levels, fewer tournaments than ever before and also a fall in sponsorship. It is galling to me and maybe others too that the main sponsor of Hockey India is the state government of Orissa. A political organization as a chief sponsor is not something to be proud about in sports. One would want commercial interest.
Hockey India League just did not have the TV ratings to flourish. To a long time hockey enthusiast it was sad to see hockey lag behind sports like kabaddi InTV eyeballs.
As you said, maybe the league design was incorrect. Maybe it should have been based on the premier league of UK.
2 Indian business houses like Hero, Sahara and Star Sports have been the mainstay of FIH revenues in the past few years.
As for IOC money, we can’t be dependent on it.
A few years years hockey was nearly axed from the olympics and after all hockey 5s emerged from the prodding of the IOC. I want hockey 11’s to continue at the olympics but if it is a question of hockey being dropped from the olympics and hockey 5s flourishing, I would prefer hockey 5s.
No hockey of any sort at the olympics will be a disaster. In the era of cost cuttings everywhere, that is a possibility.
3 Indoor hockey is not the option because very few developing countries have the indoor arenas for it. Besides it restricts hits, which in my opinion is like futsal where heading is almost non existent and detracts from the overall charm of football.
I disagree about hockey 5s being less physical. Sure, the time is shorter only 20 minutes instead of 70 but in hockey 5s the interruptions are few and the ball is rarely out of play because of the side boards. So physical effort involved is roughly the same.
I too like to watch teamwork in sports too and I saw that in hockey 5s. The essence of hockey which is dribbling and passing is maintained in hockey 5s.
There are a few videos about the recently concluded hickey 5s nationals which illustrate that.
I believe that both hockey and hockey 5s can co exist.
It is a privilege to interact with you because though your point of view may differ from mine, you argue with logic not rhetoric. The 60% figure I have read in several articles. Here is one of them-
I was horrified to read that pro wrestling and kabaddi have significantly better ratings than hockey.
As you must have read these articles speak in hard facts about TV viewership and online interest.
I don’t have the figures for Pakistan but I assume it must be much worse.
Now, imagine I was a top IOC official and I read these dismal figures. Hockey has shown a drastic decline in the two most populous countries in the hockey world. This at a time of cost cutting everywhere and popular sports like MMA lobbying to enter the Olympic movement.
Hi Jasjit,
Allow me a short answer because of lack of time this time…
1. I would prefer to measure a sports by its active participants playing regularly. Rather than measuring by passive followers or fans in stadiums or on TV. The goal of a sport is to play it, the goal is not to watch it…
2. Do not rely on (Indian) media to get the facts, especially when it comes to finances 🙂
FIH revenue (as explained during the FIH congress by the FIH executive board) has 4 components: 40% comes from IOC, 29% from TV rights, 19% from sponsors and hosting fees, 12% from other. I guess a large portion of the TV rights component would be Indian and and important part of sponsors and hosting as well. But if FIH would not have given so much events to India (to support reviving hockey in your country) these last years, the hosting fees and sponsor fees would have come from other parts of the world just the same. TV money would be mostly Indian yes, but unreliable as income as we’ve seen because of that.
3. Hockey5s will never be a valid replacement according to me for the traditional (and yet very innovative) sport of hockey. Not as a player, not as a fan. I see no added value for this 3rd format of the game next to the existing traditional and the existing short format. Pushing it through will dilute the means for the existing formats and in the end we will remain empty handed.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.
Some 10 years ago the marketeers from the IOC, supposedly the organisation guarding the Olympic movement, thought they needed another event. They invented the Youth Olympic Games (YOG). The first edition was in 2010 in Singapore and hockey got invited to join the party. Twelve U18 teams (6 boy + 6 girls) participated in our traditional 11-a-side game. Following Singapore however the IOC declared they wanted more nations to be in the next edition of the YOG. However the allotted quota of players involved could not be raised. So they asked the FIH to come up with a so-called “short format” of the game (= less players/team) to allow for more nations involved without having to accommodate more athletes.
Strengths
Weaknesses
Opportunities
Threats
2019-01-30 @ 22:47
Great read Ernst and I fully agree with you. I see benefits in promotionele of hockey in Area’s where there is no or hardly hockey. In those area indoor hockey will do, look st Scandinavia, Eastern Europe, Iran, but also Austria and Switzerland. In Asian countries indoor hockey is more or less unknown but absolutely an option with potential. Hopefully the countries with a strong indoor hockey team will like to participate in hockey 11 smaller step from 6 to 11. The tactics have proven to be succesfull in hockey 11. Reason why many countries are now also investing in indoor hockey as a development project to improve your basic skills.
These 2 formats are sufficient to play and develop hockey. It also makes sense. Which leading hockey country has a hockey 5 league? What will be the added value for their hockey 11? Nevertheless all countries like to participate in the Youth Olympics and play hockey 5 only for that reason without a league just with a group of hockey 11 players they focus shortly on this Hype play the tournament and return to normal.
I too see the monster and it could easily happen that the monster will eat us.
Again for promotion okay but not for serious tournaments like international championship. It’s allready a huge mistake that it replaced hockey 11 from the Youth Olympics. What’s next???
Siegfried Aikman
2019-01-31 @ 14:05
Thanks for the feedback Siegfried. It’s good international coaches (and players) speak out on these subjects to make these views heard. 😉
2019-02-06 @ 16:57
I wondered why Indoor Hockey wasn’t selected for the Youth Olympics. I think you missed a Pro of Hockey5s — one doesn’t have to waste valuable training and playing time with developing penalty corner specialists and penalty corner execution routines. I have not witnessed “scoring from anywhere” creating dangerous hitting. It is SOOOOooo easy for goalkeepers to stop a 30-meter shot. I like a 6v6 hybrid of 11v11+Hockey5s+Indoor Hockey that I developed (Super6s.com) because it is easier and less costly to setup and can be played with fewer people yet support more people playing at the same time on a standard outdoor pitch (22 in a 11v11 game or split the pitch into three and have 36 people playing 6v6 in three cross-field games). Another Pro is a far greater number of touches and decisions in outdoor Super6s than 11v11. Watch some teenagers play 11v11 and there can be two or three kids who never touch the ball during the game.
All the best…Cris Maloney
2019-02-08 @ 17:23
Thanks Cris.
Personally I would not consider abandoning the penalty corner a good thing. I love it, as something very specific and unique to our sport. But I know some see this different. Usually I tend to counter they only see it that way because they were too lazy training set pieces to perfection and only wanted to play games 😉
I will take a look at your super6s set up. But for 5s I’m not so sure it would add up to more involvement in the game for all.It would seem logical although I assume in 5s it would also be a lot easier for 1 stronger individual to do it all by himself. In 11v11 you need your team. But no data exists so far to back this up… or deny it either.
2019-02-08 @ 17:23
You might also want to check out the discussion about this article in this facebook group : https://www.facebook.com/groups/159512767937125/permalink/371944190027314/
2019-02-08 @ 19:30
I don’t want to see the penalty corner eliminate from field hockey, however, it does require the development of special skills (not used at other times during the game), is governed by a special set of rules (not used at other times during the game), limits participation, and stalls open play. So, for beginners (players and umpires) its a pretty high hurdle to have to cross. Think about it. Let’s say you’re beginning to teach beginners. Your first game is 5 practices away. Each practice is 90 minutes, including warm up, basic physical activities, teaching universal skills (hit, push, pass, receive, “get open”, how to defend), and cool down. That’s 450 minutes (7.5 hours). Now .. allocate time to prepare to attack on penalty corners and, allocate time to prepare to defend on penalty corners. How much time do you think you need? Now, consider training new umpires. How much time has to be given to prepare so that the rules governing penalty corners are understood and penalty corners can be applied correctly for a part of the game that — basically — involves 3 players (inserter, striker, and goalkeeper) before it devolves into open play? Then, what about social games? Do you really need a scoring circle and penalty corners for social games? Maybe, in fact, the social game benefits from not having to have a field that has to be marked with a circle and isn’t played with penalty corners. I believe that there is a version of the game that can benefit organizers, players, and umpires that doesn’t include the a scoring zone and the penalty corner.
2019-10-02 @ 10:37
Hi there, thanks for your hockey podcast. Appreciated.
I live in India so let me give you a perspective from here. I have been following hockey since 1984, so I can claim some knowledge of the sport.
I make the following points for your consideration-
1 Hockey is dying in India. It really is. The Hockey India League has not been held since 2017 because of poor spectator and sponsor interest. The interest has declined so rapidly in the heartbeat of Indian hockey, north India especially Punjab that almost no tournaments are held there any more. Instead the entire focus of hockey has shifted to eastern Indian states of Orissa and Jharkhand, which is the only place where hockey still has interest.
2 Despite the decline in popularity, India still supplies nearly 60% of the advertising revenue of world hockey. Once that begins to decline, it will be hard to find money for things like organizing events and promoting youth hockey.
3 I have watched the youth Olympics hockey tournament and more recently hockey 5s nationals and I was left impressed.
The play is exciting and complicated things for casuals, like penalty corners have been discarded. The essence of hockey which is dribbling and passing is still there. This is unlike fustsal, which differs greatly from football because heading the ball is much rarer, and heading is an essential part of football.
In addition one can get 3 hockey 5s artificial turfs out of the material used for 1 turf in hockey 11’s, and half the number of players. This is important for a developing country like India.
Hockey 5s has the potential to bring hockey players the kind of money that they deserve for all the effort they put in the sport. I really believe that with the right kind of promotion hockey 5s will once again bring to hockey the kind of attention it had in the past in India.
2019-10-02 @ 11:33
Hey Jasjit,
Thanks for your perspective. You certainly make some good points. Let me offer you my view on things, because I too claim some knowledge of the sport… 😉
1. Hockey is dying in India, you say. I will certainly not claim to be any kind of expert of India and hockey in your country, but to my knowledge hockey has never been played all over India. It has always been a sport for some specific regions. These regions will shift through time because of a variety of reasons. I doubt hockey has ever been truly the sport for all of India. Because in my opinion the criteria for this is not so much how many fans or followers the sport claims to have. The main criterium is how many people actually play (!) the sport. Fans and followers will only be loyal to your sport if you can offer them a good domestic league with local teams to support, for multiple decades so the fandom can be passed on through generations. Do this and you will have fans for life… Don’t do this and fans will flock from sport to sport based upon the latest hype. The HIL had potential… Very unfortunate a lack of vision and management made it go under after a promising start.
2. Based upon which evidence do you claim India still supplies 60% of advertising revenue? Not saying you could not be right, just don’t think there is reliable data out there to support any claim regarding advertising. But what good is Indian ad money for the game of hockey worldwide if partners like Star Sports just break existing agreements because of political powerplays not going the way of certain people at one time. If advertisers are not reliable, what use are they? The FIH at the moment relies heavily on IOC money, less on advertisers. What advertising revenue has ever been used to promote youth hockey worldwide or in India?
3. Honestly I was not impressed, quite the contrary. Hockey already had a short format of the game, which does not need artificial grass for a surface at all and which is a lot closer (technically & tactically) to the real game of hockey than the monstrosity of 5s. The essence of hockey for me is teamwork and perseverance. Those are values in sport that add value to all who play (and even just watch) the game beyond the world of sports, also in actual life. Hockey5s, in my opinion (and of most renowned coaches I know) offers the possibility for strong individuals to make their mark on the game too much and if you shorten the game that much in time you remove the physical component as well. If you look at the the values in our traditional game of hockey – and these should be the reasons to play the game – they vanish in the game of 5s…
I agree a short format of the game has value in helping to develop the game in certain areas of the world, but the way it is managed today it will not help the game of hockey but kill it instead. India, or the world, doesn’t need 5s to rejuvenate the game of hockey… It needs better management 😉
2019-10-03 @ 17:26
Thank you so much for your reply. I appreciate your courtesy to reply to a post you made months back. You have raised some very incisive points. Please allow me the chance to respond.
1 Your point about hockey being popular in certain regions of India and not in others is valid. As you put it, decline in interest in some areas and increase in other areas also is true.
However, what concerns me is how fewer and fewer people overall in India are following hockey. There is overall decline in participation levels, fewer tournaments than ever before and also a fall in sponsorship. It is galling to me and maybe others too that the main sponsor of Hockey India is the state government of Orissa. A political organization as a chief sponsor is not something to be proud about in sports. One would want commercial interest.
Hockey India League just did not have the TV ratings to flourish. To a long time hockey enthusiast it was sad to see hockey lag behind sports like kabaddi InTV eyeballs.
As you said, maybe the league design was incorrect. Maybe it should have been based on the premier league of UK.
2 Indian business houses like Hero, Sahara and Star Sports have been the mainstay of FIH revenues in the past few years.
As for IOC money, we can’t be dependent on it.
A few years years hockey was nearly axed from the olympics and after all hockey 5s emerged from the prodding of the IOC. I want hockey 11’s to continue at the olympics but if it is a question of hockey being dropped from the olympics and hockey 5s flourishing, I would prefer hockey 5s.
No hockey of any sort at the olympics will be a disaster. In the era of cost cuttings everywhere, that is a possibility.
3 Indoor hockey is not the option because very few developing countries have the indoor arenas for it. Besides it restricts hits, which in my opinion is like futsal where heading is almost non existent and detracts from the overall charm of football.
I disagree about hockey 5s being less physical. Sure, the time is shorter only 20 minutes instead of 70 but in hockey 5s the interruptions are few and the ball is rarely out of play because of the side boards. So physical effort involved is roughly the same.
I too like to watch teamwork in sports too and I saw that in hockey 5s. The essence of hockey which is dribbling and passing is maintained in hockey 5s.
There are a few videos about the recently concluded hickey 5s nationals which illustrate that.
I believe that both hockey and hockey 5s can co exist.
2019-10-04 @ 11:03
It is a privilege to interact with you because though your point of view may differ from mine, you argue with logic not rhetoric. The 60% figure I have read in several articles. Here is one of them-
https://thelogicalindian.com/sports/hockey-india-pro-hockey-league/
I just wish to make one more point to our lively discussion. I was not being melodramatic about the decline of hockey in India.
Please read the following article to get an idea of online interest about sports in India-
https://www.livemint.com/sports/news/the-rise-of-kabaddi-and-the-demise-of-hockey-1549475366081.html
Now an article about TV viewership in india
https://thebridge.in/with-increased-viewership-india-is-becoming-a-major-multi-sport-watching-nation/
I was horrified to read that pro wrestling and kabaddi have significantly better ratings than hockey.
As you must have read these articles speak in hard facts about TV viewership and online interest.
I don’t have the figures for Pakistan but I assume it must be much worse.
Now, imagine I was a top IOC official and I read these dismal figures. Hockey has shown a drastic decline in the two most populous countries in the hockey world. This at a time of cost cutting everywhere and popular sports like MMA lobbying to enter the Olympic movement.
Hockey 5’s is the last hope.
2019-10-14 @ 17:28
Hi Jasjit,
Allow me a short answer because of lack of time this time…
1. I would prefer to measure a sports by its active participants playing regularly. Rather than measuring by passive followers or fans in stadiums or on TV. The goal of a sport is to play it, the goal is not to watch it…
2. Do not rely on (Indian) media to get the facts, especially when it comes to finances 🙂
FIH revenue (as explained during the FIH congress by the FIH executive board) has 4 components: 40% comes from IOC, 29% from TV rights, 19% from sponsors and hosting fees, 12% from other. I guess a large portion of the TV rights component would be Indian and and important part of sponsors and hosting as well. But if FIH would not have given so much events to India (to support reviving hockey in your country) these last years, the hosting fees and sponsor fees would have come from other parts of the world just the same. TV money would be mostly Indian yes, but unreliable as income as we’ve seen because of that.
3. Hockey5s will never be a valid replacement according to me for the traditional (and yet very innovative) sport of hockey. Not as a player, not as a fan. I see no added value for this 3rd format of the game next to the existing traditional and the existing short format. Pushing it through will dilute the means for the existing formats and in the end we will remain empty handed.