EXCLUSIVE: Hockey’s future and development – FIH Sport Director Jon Wyatt explains | Hockey News – Times of India

BHUBANESWAR: Jon Wyatt hung up his hockey stick in 2002 after having captained England and playing 195 international matches. For 15 years after that, he had nothing to do with the sport as he didn’t consider coaching his cup of tea. It was in December 2017 that an offer got him interested and he decided to give it back to “his sport” as the new Sport and Development Director of the International Hockey Federation.
Not just Wyatt’s wealth of experience as a player but his professional experience in the field of sports marketing made him the FIH‘s choice for the job, where he incidentally replaced his former England teammate and goalkeeper David Luckes, who joined the International Olympic Committee back then.
Wyatt completed five years in the role with FIH last December, in which he has made numerous visits to India, including the current one when Timeosfindia.com caught up with him in Bhubaneswar — one of the two Odisha cities hosting the 15th edition of the Men’s Hockey World Cup, with Rourkela being the other.
Wyatt shared his opinion on a number of subjects, including making the sport more safer for players, the future of the sport in terms of the push for Hockey 5s, the frequent change of rules in the sport, educating the fans and the next set of experimentation to ensure enhanced players’ safety.
Q. Five years in the role as FIH Sport and Development director now…
The opportunity came up (in 2017). They were looking for a Sport Director of the FIH. I just thought I can maybe bring some of what I’ve learned in all these other sports for the last 15 years to my sport, the sport I love.
Q. You came in as a different sort of kicking-back in place of your former England teammate and goalkeeper David Luckes
(Laughs) Back in the day, when the kicking-back existed. I was a defender, as you probably know, and David was one of the two (goalkeepers). We (England) had Simon Mason and David as our two goalkeepers behind us. So I spent a lot of time with them shouting at me.
Q. That brings us to your opening remarks as the FIH sports director for five years. How’s it been?
To work in my own sport is really special. I never thought I would because when I retired from hockey in the early 2000s, there weren’t really that many professional jobs. I wasn’t a coach. Coaching was the one place you could go to earn some money in hockey, but I was never a coach and wasn’t interested in being a coach. So I never thought I’d work in hockey. So to have the chance to come back has been really cool and the best part about it is coming to the events because the coaches, the managers, the umpires, the technical team, the administrators, they’re all people that I have known for a long, long time. So it’s really nice to reconnect with those people and also then to see how the game has evolved and see the new generation coming through.
Q. You didn’t want to be a coach, but you’ve gone a level higher actually…
Not higher, just different (smiles).
Q. There have been a lot of rule changes in hockey over the years, including in your tenure. It doesn’t happen in most other sports. Are we trying to salvage something?
I don’t think that hockey is unique in making changes. I think most other sports make changes because you’re always trying to improve the sport and as the athletes develop, then you want to try and develop with them.
I think some of the rule changes that have been brought in, the big rule changes, things like removing offside, or allowing rolling substitutions, or self-pass have made a huge positive impact on the game. The game now is so much faster…Like because of rolling substitutions, the players now are 100% for five or six minutes and then they come off and have a rest, and then they go back on and they are 100% again. So the whole speed of the game has improved.
You watch other sports, including football, when there’s a foul, it takes 30-40 seconds for the game to start again. But the ball now for us (hockey) is in play almost all the time…I don’t think we’re chasing something. I think we’re just evolving with the game and as the game develops, the rules are evolving as well. I think they have been hugely positive.
Q. But we need to educate the fans as well about it because they sometimes feel unaware of a rule change, which makes them feel like being left in the lurch…
We have to continue to educate and I think the commentators that we have now are really excellent at explaining things to the fans. I think if we’re also honest, the vast majority of people who come and watch hockey also play hockey. There aren’t many people in the stands, with the possible exception of here in India, where there is real popular fan culture around hockey. But in many parts of the world, there isn’t that fan culture. So what you have is hockey people and hockey players coming to watch hockey. They understand and they know the rules, no problem.
I think the reason why the game is so skillful is partly because of the rules. If you remove some of the rules to make it simpler to understand, then it would become less skillful and less exciting, therefore.
Q. What are we having next in hockey in terms of developing it?
I’ve been amazed at the World Cup here. Ever since Tokyo, which was only 18 months ago, the development in the aerial passing is amazing. Every team now is able to throw a 50- to 70-metre pass, often into the circle, and it gives an immediate goal-scoring opportunity. We didn’t see anything like as much in Tokyo; it was being used, but not very much. So I think that’s the biggest evolution.
That comes with challenges for the rules because in the past, if you’re receiving a ball, you have to give five meters and you have to give space. But if you’re passing into the circle, as a defender, you can’t allow someone five meters to then just have a free shot at goal. So we’ve now allowed the intercept, so you see lots and lots of defenders coming in and intercepting the pass.
We have to always balance, and it’s the same with all the rule changes. You’re always trying to balance spectacle & skill and rewarding that with protection of safety because what we can’t have is two players jumping in the air trying to hit the ball.
Q. That brings me to the issue of safety on penalty corner set-pieces, which the FIH has been seriously mulling to enhance. How can you improve the safety without compromising on the thrill that penalty corners bring to the game?
That’s exactly why we launched the consultation (Global Consultation Program), which you would have seen, last year. I had over 4300 responses from around the world, mainly from players, but there were some coaches, some officials and other umpires who got involved. We have to remember that every rule that we make in hockey isn’t only for the World Cup level. It has to go all the way down.
The penalty corner, which is a key part of our game and has always been, has evolved over the years. Going back to the time when I used to play and everyone was hitting, there was no drag-flicking. The reason for that was because the stop after the injection wasn’t required to be done outside of the circle. So you would run in, stop and then you’d be shooting for maybe 12 or 13 meters. And that was really quite scary…no face masks, no knee pad, no gloves, nothing…I was maybe two meters off the goal-line, the attackers were running in two or three meters, so we were 10 meters apart.
So in the ’80s we introduced the backboard…I wasn’t around (playing) then, but people I’m sure were saying, ‘Oh, but one of the spectacular things is to smash the ball into the roof (netting); don’t ruin the spectacle’. So it was the same discussion. Then we brought the backboard in and you had to hit the ground, hit a bit low (to target the board).
That worked for a while. Then people started hitting it harder and harder, and then it got to the stage in the mid ’90s where it was becoming dangerous. You couldn’t react and people were getting deflections and getting hit. Then the FIH said we want to keep the penalty corner but we want to make it safer. So then the ball had to come outside of the circle to be stopped. So the hitting was now from further away…Therefore, that skill to bring the ball into the circle and then flick was developed.
Now they’re flicking it harder and harder. So maybe 10 years ago, we started to allow protection to look after the people. So we didn’t change the shot but we allowed the protection.
If you then move forward to today, you have most defences now with all of the protective equipment, run two defenders basically to block half of the goal. The goalkeeper doesn’t need to worry about one side of the goal anymore because there are two people in the way. And if it hits them, they’re okay, they don’t get hurt because they have got protection. And it’s a re-award. So the goalkeeper now stands offset, only having to worry about half of the goal. If you shoot this way, it’s really difficult. We see a few goals, but the number of goals (from penalty corners) has reduced.
We’re not looking at the penalty corner rule because the conversion rate has reduced. We’re looking at the penalty corner for the safety aspects. But one of the side consequences of allowing everyone to wear more protective equipment is they block that half of the goals.
We’ve had 16 matches in this World Cup so far. The conversion rate is 11%. One in nine. The only reason it’s in double digits is because Australia have scored four out of, I think, 14. So they’re one in three nearly, which is kind of what the best teams used to aim for. The next best is one in six, and then many are much worse than that.
If you were giving away a penalty corner, you’re expecting the team is probably going to score every three or four or five; now they’re scoring every eight or nine. So the penalty of a penalty corner is half what it used to be. Really interesting.
So what we’re now looking at is, on the safety side, at the highest level, it’s fine, because the quality of the equipment is really good. But if you get down to the grassroots level, the kit is not as good, the athletes are not as fast. So therefore, they (rushers) are not getting as close (to the drag-flicker), and therefore they’re getting hit, and they’re getting injured.
So that was part of the consultation last year. I also asked all of the countries around the world where hockey is played: ‘can you give us your data on injuries?’ Because we think it’s becoming more dangerous. But we don’t have the data at the FIH. We have international-level data because we keep all that, but we don’t have the data for a club competition in India or club competition in the Netherlands? We asked them all and none of them had it.
So the two things we’ve done is one, we have asked the hockey world what do you think about the current rules. Tell us, give us your experiences. Secondly, we’ve asked for data. And this year, we will be running some trials. We will use some of the ideas that people came back with. But we’ll also, with the current rules, collect some data because what we don’t want to do is make a change because we think there’s a danger when actually the data says there’s not a danger.
Definitely nothing will change before the 2024 Paris Olympics because everyone needs to prepare for that (change in rules)…If we do change anything, we’ll try to make the change immediately after the Paris Olympics so that the teams have two years to prepare for the World Cup.
Q. What are those PC rule changes you have on the table?
The ideas that people have suggested, some of those are around restricting what the defenders can do. Some people have made suggestions like we need to change, we want to stop having two people running a block because it’s dangerous. So you could restrict what they can do. For me, it’s quite difficult to say what they can and can’t do. But that’s one option.
Other things are around the attack. Some people are saying, if you hit the ball, it has to hit the backboard. You can now drag-flick the ball as hard as you can…So, therefore, the drag-flick has to hit the backboard is one suggestion. Again, for me, that removes some of the excitement and also it probably makes it easier to defend because if you know I can’t come up here, I can only come down here. So maybe that’s not so good.
Another idea is the ball has to go out to the five meter dotted line before it comes back in. You could reduce the number of defenders, you could increase the number of attackers. And then there are some really radical ideas, which talk about effectively playing just an overload. So you say it’s seven against four or eight against five or nine against six. Everyone else has to be in the other half.
For me, I’d like to keep a penalty corner as a set-piece because I think it’s unique to hockey. The game is so fast now that we kind of need a moment of stop, get everything set up. It’s like a penalty in rugby or a free-kick in football. There’s a moment where everyone now is focused because the game has stopped. You’re looking at something as a set-piece and our set-piece is the penalty corner. So I’d like to keep a set-piece element. But we can find a way where we keep the spectacle, but we make it safer.
And then the suggestion is we use shootouts. So you can still call it a penalty corner. But you know, it’s a shootout…But for me, in a shootout, the scoring conversion is too high. If you see five shootouts, you would expect four to be scored off, that’s too high. That’s more like a penalty stroke conversion rate, so I don’t think that’s the answer.
I think we’ll try some things and some of the things we trial will look quite similar to a current penalty corner, but maybe with a slight variation, maybe it’s still five defenders, the attackers still have to be around the circle, but the ball has to go out to the five-meter dotter line.
The challenge with that one is that does it still give the opportunity for a drag-flick, because the ball has to go that further out? Now the teams will then have to find a way of getting the ball back into the circle or near the circle. Maybe they pass it to someone.
Q. When we talk about safety, if we look at hockey fives, it looks even more dangerous…
People’s perception of Hockey 5s is that it looks really dangerous.
Q. Is it a perception?
Well, as we are, we’ll keep monitoring it. But we have now held a number of Hockey 5s tournaments. One of them we held in Lausanne. There was a World Cup qualifier held in Europe and there have been other tournaments. And the actual injury rate is not higher currently than 11-a-side hockey, which is really surprising to people because people think it looks really dangerous.
One of the reasons, I think, people perceive it as dangerous, is when you’re there, when you’re watching, you’re really close. And when players are shooting and the ball is flying, you’re kind of ‘Whoa! That feels really (dangerous)’. But if you are watching the same shot in a circle in an 11-a-side game, and you’re watching it from the sidelines, you’re 40 meters from the action. And with that distance, it doesn’t appear as dangerous.
Everyone was saying Hockey 5s is really dangerous because it’s so crowded, and there’s so many players shooting. But in 11-a-side hockey, there are more players in the circle and people are totally fine with that. That wasn’t perceived to be dangerous. It’s really interesting.
I think one of the other reasons is players haven’t played enough Hockey 5s to understand what they can do…People haven’t quite learned how to play and people also haven’t learned how to watch.
So that’s the biggest concern that people have about Hockey 5s. It is brilliant from an opportunity to play and develop. But we do need to make sure it stays safe. We’ll keep an eye on that. At the moment, I believe it’s more perception than reality. But we will keep gathering the stats and if reality says I’m wrong, then we’ll have to look at making some changes.
Q. Is Hockey 5s the future?
I think it’s part of the future. I definitely see 11-a-side hockey continuing to be our Olympic format, our main format around the world, like 15-a-side rugby or 11-a-side football. That’s the game. Hockey is played with 11 people. There are then shorter, smaller versions of many sports — 20-20 cricket is the obvious one, Rugby Sevens, Futsal; and Hockey 5s at the moment is one of the two shorter forms we have — we have indoor hockey and we have Hockey 5s.
I don’t really care whether people come into hockey because they watch the World Cup, 11-a-side, or the Hockey 5s or indoor hockey. I don’t care. I just want more people to play hockey. Some people will play all three and some people will only play 11-a-side, some people will only play indoor and some will only play Hockey 5s. More people should play hockey. That’s all we want.
Q. Hockey was on the chopping block of the Olympics not long back. Is Hockey 5s an idea that developed from there so that we can salvage the sport if the IOC again thinks of de-rostering it?
I wasn’t at the FIH. But my understanding is that it was not the reason why Hockey 5s was developed. After London, that shock got sent around and that generated a whole load of new work and thinking around hockey, out of which things like Pro League came because we wanted to have top-level hockey in more countries, on television more often…Look at the first three mini tournaments we’ve had in Pro league this season, two in Argentina and one here in India. Huge crowds, really successful. That, together with a good relationship with the IOC, hockey is in a really good place with the Olympics.
Hockey 5s separately was developed and started off at the Youth Olympic Games, and it’s now played in 60 plus countries around the world. That’s a development tool to get more people into hockey. People who don’t like Hockey 5s argue that this is the FIH’s way of trying to bring a different type of hockey to the Olympics. It’s never been the idea, never been the plan, never been the strategy.
Ten plus years down the line, if in the future the IOC comes to us and says ‘Hockey 5s looks really good, do you want to play Hockey 5s as well at the Olympics?’, of course we will say yes, great. But we are not going to put Hockey 5s instead of Hockey 11s. Hockey 11 is hockey. It’s the Olympic format, it’s what 95% of the people around the world play. That’s our sport. So we need to stop talking. The more we talk about only Hockey 5s in the Olympics, some people may think maybe we should.
FIH CEO Theiry Weil and new FIH president Tayyab Ikram have both spoken to the IOC and made it very clear, and the IOC is also clear that 11-a-side hockey is the Olympic format.
Q. Odisha has invested a lot in bringing up the stadium in Rourkela, which will have to be sustained with regular international tournaments. Has the FIH been approached for that by Hockey India?
Not specifically. No, we haven’t had that sort of conversation with them. But for example, the next set of Pro League matches that India is hosting this season will take place in Rourkela. So I would not be surprised at all, and I would sort of expect that in future Pro League seasons as well, Rourkela would be hosting some matches. It would make some sense.
Is a twin-city World Cup a norm from here on. This men’s World Cup and the last women’s edition both have been co-hosted by two venues, even the next two men and women editions are scheduled that way?
It’s not a conscious decision. It’s definitely being shown that it can happen. We did it with the women’s last year in two countries; this one here is in two cities. What it shows is we are willing to consider all options.