Who killed the Indian Hockey? - Page 5

India has the PHL - Premier Hockey League with international players. It's matches are telecast on sports channels. They have changed rules to incorporate more advertising time. Instead of two sessions of 35 minutes, they have 4 sessions of 17 and a half minutes (In cricket you can advertise after every over, wicket, four. or six! We can't blame the format of the game now, can we?) It has been advertised on TV. What they need is a better marketing team. 😊

The Premier Hockey League (PHL) is a four year old domestic field hockey tournament in India, conducted by Indian Hockey Federation (IHF) with active support from sports news channel ESPN India. The tournament was initiated to revive interest in the sport which was losing spectator interest to cricket in recent times. Hockey is India's National Sport, with the country having won a record eight Olympic Gold medals and having lifted the World Cup once.

One of the main reasons for the waning popularity of the existing domestic competition was the rise of corporate teams such as Indian Airlines and Punjab & Sind Bank which do not have a steady fan following. PHL is trying to change that by bringing in regional flavor. It fields teams from traditional hockey bastions such as Bombay, Punjab, Orissa, and Tamil Nadu, as well as from other places like Hyderabad and Bangalore, where it has got some fan following.

In the inaugural edition of 2005 which was held in Hyderabad five teams took part Hyderabad Sultans, Sher-e-Jalandhar, Bangalore Lions, Maratha Warriors and Chennai Veerans. 2005 title was won by Hyderabad Sultans and Chandigarh Dynamos got promotion to premier division as Chennai Veerans were relegated.

In the 2006 tournament, which comprised of two tiers, Bangalore Lions had won the premier division title and Orissa Steelers the first division title.

PHL 2007, played in two phases in Chennai and Chandigarh saw participation of seven teams -- Orissa Steelers, Sher-e-Jalandhar, Bangalore Lions, Hyderabad Sultans, Maratha Warriors, Chandigarh Dynamos and Chennai Veerans. Orissa Steelers won the title in 2007. Sher-e-Jalandhar was the runners up.

PHL 2008 was won by Bangalore Lions, they took home prize money of Rs.4 million. Chandigarh Dynamos finished second and Hyderabad Sultans ended up on third place.
The fundamental aberration from the format of normal hockey games is the number of sessions. A normal 70 minute hockey game includes two sessions, each of 35 minutes each. The PHL has four sessions each of 17.5 minutes. This format is tailor made to include more advertising time in order to generate funds. Teams are allowed to take time-outs to chalk out new strategies during the course of the game.

If the match is deadlocked after full-time, the number of players of each team is gradually reduced till a result is obtained. A win within full-time fetches three points, whereas a win after full-time fetches two points to the winning team and one to the losing team. Each team is also allowed to field up to five international players.

In addition, another feature of the PHL for the year 2007, has been the innovative Penalty shootout competition, modelled similar to the Major League Soccer penalty shootout. Each team will have five penalty shoot outs each where 5 players will play a one on one with the goal keeper of the opponent team. Each player will start with the ball on the 25 yard line and when the umpire blows the whistle player will have maximum of 8 secs to score a goal with only the goal keeper defending the goal. The player can take as many shots possible within the stipulated 8 secs.

Another interesting feature of PHL is timeouts, similar to basketball and volleyball. Each team will be allowed 2 x 120 second timeouts per team in regulation time. These timeouts will be mandatory and has to be taken once in each half of play. There will be a warning from the bench 5 minutes before the end of the second/fourth quarter if the team has still not availed of the mandatory timeout. 2 minutes from the end of the second/fourth quarter the timeout will be imposed by the technical bench if the team has still not availed of it.

In addition, each team will also be allowed 1 x 2 minute timeout which is not mandatory and could be taken at any point in time during the regulation time. Each team will also be allowed 1 x 2 minute timeouts which are non mandatory and can be taken at any point in time during the extra time period.

Experts accuse the Indian Hockey Federation of being to lethargic and bureaucratic in popularising the sport. Meanwhile the International Hockey Federation is keenly studying the format.

The problem is the governing body, the selectors, the bureaucrats!

Originally posted by: SholaJoBhadkey

@ CB - hockey was a popular spectator sport. Shivaji Stadium used to be packed for league games. It's true it wasn't played in galli mohallas, but it was watched because we were still beating other teams (specially Pakistan) on a more regular basis than in cricket.

there we go again! point is in comparison to cricket, hockey has never been a popular sport for eons. we've liked to revel in our past glories but other than on rare occasions have not had the audience to match even a local cricket game.

Originally posted by: souro

@CB: If you want to drag every country in the equation and prove it that way that hockey doesn't have it in itself to become a successful spectator sport then you should first look at cricket itself.

fallacious argument. take countries who excel at both to make a more logical connection! and i've given you australia, great britain, spain who've done well in hockey yet cricket/ football is more popular.

Cricket outside of the subcontinent is not the largest popular sport.

irrelevant if you get my point above.

Even in Australia where it's the national sport there is rugby. Moreover, there are only ten nations playing test cricket. Why?? If it's such an easy sport shouldn't all be playing and watching it. Why has it failed in other countries then.

because soccer is also a fairly "easy" game. as for the rest, we have entrenched interests in the US that make it hard for new sports to take off. they are already all sported out with nba/ nhl/ nfl/ nbl.

Hockey on the other hand is played by far more countries. And how can you be so sure that hockey doesn't have any potential?? Just because you have no interest in it doesn't mean noone else is gonna watch it.

jumping to wrong conclusions. did i say i have no interest in it? make sound assumptions if you must!

as for who's gonna watch it or not, that's what we are talking about. apparently not enough do watch in comparison to cricket where both are offered as alternatives. get that point?

And as for you saying that no country has gone on to commercialise hockey to that extent. So?? If some country commercialised hockey only then will India get the license to spread the game even more or something in your opinion?? EPL has revolutionised football. Kerry Packer did that to cricket. Now IPL is set to do it again in cricket. Doesn't that prove that somebody has to start first and yes people can be dumb enough not to think about something.

and i suppose no one in the world has been smart enough to see the potential for hockey, if it is there in the first place? why have we not had a kerry packer in hockey?

Where was MCC and other cricket boards before Kerry Packer to commercialise cricket and take it to the present situation. Whereas according to you cricket was somewhat popular even then. If India was the epicentre of hockey then wasn't it ultimately India's and IHF's fault that they failed to try to make hockey even more popular when they had the time and opportunity.

because india was not a rich country. because indian govt did not fund sports. because indian audiences did not spend enough money watching hockey. because cricket was a game that was already played in most of the commonwealth countries, so did not need much spreading out then. because hockey is not an "easy" game to play/ take up. one could go on... We were also one of the founders in chess, werent we? how did we lose out to the soviets and the americans in chess then? anand has been our only success and that too recently. simple reason is very few indians personally play it professionally. just not enough money in it.

india does not even have to be best at cricket for millions to tune in. show a one-day game between india and bangladesh/ kenya and you'll have huge viewership. so let's not pretend that it's about winning or losing alone as you were earlier. the indian cricket team will have a way to make a close match/ mash of any game, ironically enough increasing the excitement in the process.

apart from that, dont know where you are going with that commercialization stuff. simple point is that in countries that play both sports, cricket is far more popular.

Originally posted by: chatbuster

india does not even have to be best at cricket for millions to tune in. show a one-day game between india and bangladesh/ kenya and you'll have huge viewership. so let's not pretend that it's about winning or losing alone as you were earlier. the indian cricket team will have a way to make a close match/ mash of any game, ironically enough increasing the excitement in the process.

Is that your theory or something?? Let's take out all the money, media coverage and promotional stuff from cricket and let's see how long it can survive like that even with the so called exciting finishes that India provides. I didn't say that winning is the be all and end all of all factors. I said there was more interest in hockey when India used to win and so it'd have been easier to take the opportunity to spread the game at that time as there was existing viewer interest. If they succeeded to popularise it even more then there would have been more money and that could have helped hockey.

apart from that, dont know where you are going with that commercialization stuff. simple point is that in countries that play both sports, cricket is far more popular.

At first you say that people don't take up chess on the professional level cos there's not much money involved and now you say that you don't understand why I'm talking about commercialisation. Make up your mind first about what you think you believe in.

Moderator's Note: Refrain form making personal remarks, it's killing the debate, last warning here...Please be considerate, if you may. Thanks!

Originally posted by: chal_phek_mat

the answer is Astroturf

prior to Astro Turf, India's olympic record 7 gold, 1 silver 2 bronze

Post Astro Turf record 1 gold, 0 silver 0 bronze and that gold was when the European nations refused to play in Moscow😆

That is definitely part of the reason. Changes in turf plus changes in off side rules, short corner rules have negatively impacted India. Traditionally, Indian hockey is slow moving relying heavily on long dribbling. Strategy is more defensive as the halfs never move forward. Most Indian leagues are played on poorly maintained clay/rock fields which do not help skill development.

Investing in more astroturf will encourage strategic and aggressive gameplay to improve our hockey.

Originally posted by: souro

All the examples you gave already had one sport or other in the prime position with most viewership much before hockey made an entry. Still people have showed interest in hockey in those countries, doesn't that indicate that hockey has potential as a spectator sport if used the right way.

potential? yes. low potential and low probability.😊

Since easy according to you is easy availability of equipments, let me tell you, hockey is also considered an easy game. Hockey is quite popular among poor tribals in Orissa. They don't start playing on astro turfs, they start playing with simple sticks and a ball, playing on plain grass fields.

"easy" according to me were a combination of other factors as well. not just what u are reproducing here.😊

btw, when someone's in school, they are generally not thinking of getting into professional sports. they play the game they enjoy. schools like mayo and columbus aint exactly poor, but the kids there dont spend much time playing hockey. they gravitate towards cricket because they can play that anywhere anytime. not so with hockey. winning or losing on the international scene, govt spending more money on tribals etc wont change that.

as for tribals, great to know they are playing the game. but unfortunately, very few tribals ever make it to the top level in any sports, exceptions apart. their playing it will probably not do it. people have to take it up the same way they have taken up cricket. and then too, if our mediocre record in cricket is any yardstick, we cant even be sure we'll do well with the new hockey rules.

And if you want me to believe that nba/nhl/nfl/nbl are popular in most countries other than US, then do provide the supporting stats.

was that what i was saying?😕 i was saying that these 4 sports are popular in the US and they probably dont find the need for additional. which explains why soccer doesnt do that great here. people have also tried to start cricket leagues but those havent gone anywhere.

And no one offered cricket and hockey to the audiences on the same level field. Cricket has moved forward with heavy promotion and media coverage, but not so for hockey. When hockey perfomance in India was better there used to be a section who used to follow the game, but the controlling body didn't take matters any further to gain more popularity or penetrate even more. Get my point??

let's say u were a hockey board starting off back then with a pittance. what cld u or anyone else have accomplished? ironically, india excelled at the game when no one else was as interested, no one else bothered to tour india as they do for cricket. with cricket, there have always been 5 or 6 or perhaps even more touring nations, all good at it, who made the games competitive and fun to watch. so it had more of a natural constituency watching it. indians have also generally been more tuned in to the commonwealth, and cricket has gained from it all.

Ask Kerry Packer, why are you asking me??😛 Just cos nobody has invested in hockey doesn't mean that nobody will in the future and neither does it mean that hockey doesn't have any attraction.

any attraction? question is how much. if we have to rely on government funding to subsidize a sport or any industry for that matter, then that shld be a bigger discussion in a developing country such as ours.

Well the governing body never tried to raise more money from the audience and you somehow arrived to the conclusion that they were unwilling to spend. Yes India wasn't rich then and the economic surge coincided with the cricket boom making the latter even bigger. But if hockey were also there it would have it's share of the pie as well.

arent u assuming that governing bodies were stupid? why wld the various bodies not have tried to raise money if they could?😕 unko paisa acha naheen lagta thha, isliye? 😛as for share of the pie, question again is how much. i am saying very little.

yes, like others have said, one possibility cld have been to put in enuff astroturfs. but then it seems we are almost looking at a new sport that requires different skills and a level of funding/ governmental approval that has generally not been possible for even our resource-rich BCCI. how many cricket stadiums have they built? or "fast pitches" to compete with the aussies and others?

There are over 50 countries in the commonwealth and only 10 play test cricket. Even then all of those who play can't generate enough fund to support the sport on their own. There has been a lot of promotional activities by the ICC and individual cricket boards on behalf of cricket to gain more viewers and these promotional activities are still contiuing.

Exactly, that's what I am talking about. If there's not enough money in it and if there are not sponsors who'll pay for the expensive gears of the players then it'll be difficult to find people interested to play the game and if there are no good players playing then cos. will be least interested to sponsor n promote that event and eventually very few people will actually get to know or see it.

Is that your theory or something??

isnt that all we have? what you have too?😉

Let's take out all the money, media coverage and promotional stuff from cricket and let's see how long it can survive like that even with the so called exciting finishes that India provides. I didn't say that winning is the be all and end all of all factors. I said there was more interest in hockey when India used to win and so it'd have been easier to take the opportunity to spread the game at that time as there was existing viewer interest. If they succeeded to popularise it even more then there would have been more money and that could have helped hockey.

At first you say that people don't take up chess on the professional level cos there's not much money involved and now you say that you don't understand why I'm talking about commercialisation. Make up your mind first about what you think you believe in.

yes, u are talking abt commercialization first. i am talking about product first. dont get it? then try to take gilli-danda and see if we can commercialize it.😉

i am saying that hockey does not lend itself easily to being played by everyone. same as soccer, it doesnt have natural breaks in the game where media can put in ads. the little ads on the bottom of the screen dont generate the big bucks. but soccer is "easier" to take up. finally, we get to marketing that the boards cld have done. but first, gotta start with a saleable product, not pump money into something in an effort to subsidize the "manufacture" of a game. product first, money second.😉