Tue 14 Dec, 2004
|
|
|
|
Opinions expressed here do not represent the official views of PlanetFieldHockey.com or its staff. Comments will be removed if they are considered offensive or of a personal nature.
Comments on this article
|
Get Real
09-28-2004 4:58 pm
|
Report this post
|
Grass
Pull your head in Sir and wake up and smell the roses. If they want to "Boycott" then go ahead. Not sure where Pakistan would score their goals from without Sohail's flick !!
|
|
hockey lover
09-28-2004 5:52 pm
|
Report this post
|
running like fools
just hitting the ball hard and running like fools without showing any skills is decreasing the fan pool and everyboby should agree that this brand of hockey is killing the art of hockey and the true essence of game, what earlier looked so pleasing is nowing a dull methodical game without any flair.
and for Mr.real all europeons will find it hard to get theball in to the opposition net if some way short corners become less scoring,because they mostly play to construct short corners.
|
|
Rudi
09-28-2004 6:26 pm
|
Report this post
|
Grass Championship
Instead of offering a boycott threat, India should host a great grass pitch tournament for eight or twelve teams----I believe Pakistan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Spain would all play. Why not do this in addition to the every four years World Cup? Hockey needs more top tournaments...make this the best grass pitch tournament in the World.
|
|
hockey no hoper
09-28-2004 8:03 pm
|
Report this post
|
webindia123
can't believe that this stor makes it to publication somewhere - the web hosts must have been really desparate for an article.
Natural grass tournaments - can play it in my backyard.
A team that passes the ball fluently and involves all 11 players is a lot better to watch than a pack of guys who dribble the ball in the interests of 'flair.' I would much rather see a team make 7 to 8 passes and work two on ones than watching a showboat.
Grass - is what cows eat.
|
|
Get Real
09-28-2004 9:45 pm
|
Report this post
|
Grass
And Pakistan don't ? As for being European I think not, at least not last time I looked at my passport !! Australia - Gold - PC % poor at Athens, NZ - 6th - Pc % good but only 35% of their goals, Pakistan - 5th - PC 57% - overall goal % greater still, Holland far less than Pak etc etc Think you should qualify your facts sir before you write what you think is true. Facts will reflect that PC goals as a % have gone down due to better defending and better GK's.
|
|
joots007
09-28-2004 11:30 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
I agree with Rudi, i think a grass tournament would be a good idea.
|
|
Errol D'Cruz
09-29-2004 2:31 am
|
Report this post
|
grass/astro
A grass tournament. Fine. What shall we call it? The World grass championship! Or the Hockey Wimbledon.
All the best in finding dates on the overcrowded calendar. Allow at least two months of pratice as the grass game is markedly different from plastic. Another month for re-aclimitasing to synthetic turf for 'normal' hockey committments.
Or perhaps, select a whole new squad for grass -- a la one-day and Test cricket teams.
Cheers,
Errol
|
|
Mixed opinion
09-29-2004 6:59 am
|
Report this post
|
Grass
Why aren't india and pakistan appealing for help with development to provide synthetic pitches in city areas where loads of people have access to them and the game can develop for you to have great players of the future?
I would love to see a grass hockey international tournament but none of the best players from europe would get involved apart from maybe veterans sides.
Going back to grass would be a retrograde step - the olympics for example would be knackered because you couldnt play so often on one or two grass pitches - also it would not help India and pakistan regain a position at the top of the world rankings because the rest of the hockey world would not subscribe to using grass.
Boycotting tournaments? So what? Im sure Canada and USA, to name but two, would happily take the places left.
|
|
Spirals
09-29-2004 7:57 am
|
Report this post
|
As long as the grass is of exceptional quality. If it were not it would be a very slow and boring game. Either that or the entire game would be played in the air.
There would be no need for ground balls, as flicks would be faster, more accurate and easier. Plus it is extremely easy to raise a ball on grass, which also adds to the danger factor. It would be interesting but only for a one off thing, otherwise it would waste so much time of international teams. To play on grass you need to train on grass, which takes time from training on artificial pitches.
But, if you want my opinion, this thing will never take off.
|
|
Me again
09-29-2004 10:50 am
|
Report this post
|
PLaying world hockey on grass
This may sound stupid but i am making a valid point:
I'm english. I think we should stop using these thin sticks with the tiny head and go back to the great big heavy wooden ones with a massive head - because england/GB cannot compete in the top level (i.e. top 4 in the world) partly because our skills arent as good as Aussies, Holland, etc. - so we should change the rules to give us a better chance.
That's what the guy in the article is saying - we cant win so make it an unfair advantage in our favour, or we'll cry.
|
|
To Me Again
09-30-2004 4:22 am
|
Report this post
|
Change of Rules
Wake up and smell the coffee (or tea)
Were not the rules of hockey changed to suit the European style of hockey? Which made it unfair on the Asian style of hockey - did not hear you complaining too much then.
BTW - as an English man you should not worry too much about playing hockey with any sort of stick on any surface...did not see your team (OK Britain) do too well against one Asian team (on Astro turf) in the Olympics for the second successive time. Your flash in the pan years with Imran Sherwani, Kulbir Bhaura (oops Asian players) and Sean are over.
The key point is - hockey is dying as a sport. Some things must be radically altered before Els van Breda and her colleagues kill it completely. If one of the things is introduction of grass hockey - so be it. What have you got to lose? another match? GB don't win to be winning much lately. Who knows - GB (England? - sort this out first) may even win a tournament on grass. See what is about to happen North of your border with regards to hockey in Scotland. The fan base is decreasing and with that revenues from the game. Do you see major multi-national companies running to sponsor hockey events?
The only hockey that seems to be growing is ice hockey.
Play hockey, Don't kill hockey
|
|
Funkmaster Flex
09-30-2004 9:30 am
|
Report this post
|
To Me Again
>>>The only hockey that seems to be growing is ice hockey.
Er, uh, excuse me? The moneyed North American circuit is ON STRIKE.
|
|
Prabhjyot Singh Madan
09-30-2004 12:14 pm
|
Report this post
|
SIMPLE AND NON CONTROVERSIAL !!!
I have a proposal which i always say and i will always recommend no matter what the world says because it is simple and non controversial.
Please have 3 surfaces
1)astroturf
2)grass
3)clay
Just make them official turfs of hockey by the IHF. Reasons
1)astroturf game is fast
2)grass requires skills
3)clay is not a bad idea since players in africa play hockey on clay and it is fun.
Let the host country decide what surface they would like use for the tournament....but obvious europeans will say astroturf...asians will say grass and africans like clay.
THE GAME WILL BECOME POPULAR .....which is important. it is good for the game to have multiple surfaces. Just let the host country declare the surface and the participating team will have the headahce of forming players who just might be different for dfferent surfaces and more more players will get a chance to play also...How do you like this idea
|
|
Prabhjyot Singh Madan
09-30-2004 12:16 pm
|
Report this post
|
Please planet field hockey !!!!
If the moderator like my ideas please forward them to the hcokey federation because the site can recommend it with more force to the IHF. Please
|
|
Euro
09-30-2004 12:48 pm
|
Report this post
|
Since when does playing on grass require more skill to play on?
Admittidly it takes a "different" skill set to play on. You also have to appreciate that European sides do not have the climate to play on grass as you may do in Asia/Africa, except for a few months of the year when cricket would be played on available surfaces.
We play a lot of festival hockey on grass and no one wants to play on it for more than a couple of days, certainly not a season. It is a dangerous surface to play on. A miss hit, studs, tackles create divots and an uneven surface.
Keep the grass for kids learning on, a knock about in the park and festival hockey!!
|
|
Asghar Khan
09-30-2004 1:46 pm
|
Report this post
|
Why Grass ALSO !
Grass should be re-introduced ,as a acceptable surface in addition to artificial surfaces for the reason that Asian countries do not have the wealth to instal , maintain and eventually refurbish artificial pitches, whereas , grass will not be expensive venture.
A article in a hockey book written by the late Sydney Friskin (correspondant for English Newspapers ) gave a factual statistic ,that, in the year 1988 , Holland had 400 artificial pitches (yes 400 ) and Pakistan had 11 pitches , ratio of 40 to 1.
I am sure since that since that year Pakistan and have India have installed a few pitches since than but the ratio must have decreased marginally.
I hope this gives a insight of why Aslam Sheer Khan said what he did.
|
|
namelessderro
09-30-2004 7:04 pm
|
Report this post
|
hockey on grass
GUys can i just add something hear, the difference between playing hockey on turf and grass is not like in tennis where it is only the bounce of the ball that differs. Playing hockey on grass is an entriely different thing to playing on turf.
I cant see where you guys seems to get this idea that hockey on grass requires more skill, it is all about hitting the ball long and hoping that it will bounce enough to go throught some people and stop at the other end for a forward to pick up, what skill is involved with that.
Also how is it that Europe have changed the game to suit them? they would have been just as dominant if the game had stayed on grass. Now you guys are saying 'Hey we cant win, why dont we give us an advantage so that hockey doesn't die.' How bout we say that all asian teams get an extra player on the field instead?
And i dont think that hockey is dying because of astr-turf, if anything in australia its width has increased as when the game becomes faster and more exciting it gets more television coverage. THere is no way that goin back to playing on grass will help the game prosper
|
|
soccer fan
10-01-2004 4:02 am
|
Report this post
|
|
soccer fan i believe that hockey is dying out due to politics and i tell u from the hockey i watch i can tell u that asian teams will lose to european teams on grass also
|
|
PLIM
10-01-2004 6:47 am
|
Report this post
|
TYPICAL SUBCONTINET TRIPE
Why dont India and Pakistan admit they are fallen angels. I for one thought the Olympic final and semis were some of the best games of hockey seen for a long time.
Sport moves on and forward with technical advances.
Why not make all sticks perfectly straight to prevent Sohail from flicking so hard. Even with grass pitches do you not strive to have a quick flat pitch hence why astro was introduced? Is playing on water based not similar to grass with the bouncing bomb etc just quicker?
These kind of comments are typical of a nation unable to look at themselves and their organisation for answers to why they have underachieved for decades. Indian hockey is becoming the laughing stock of World hockey.
|
|
NA
10-01-2004 11:31 am
|
Report this post
|
For Grass
I agree with the push to re-introduce grass, we brought this up in the discussion where FIH wanted the India& pakistan to Modernise. I think to make a game popular you have to enlarge the base and more surfaces will help in that . It also adds variety to the sport and makes it more affordable to countries which lack funds. I think turf is good for Europe and should stay but we need to add more surfaces to save Hockey else it will be dead pretty soon in the countries like India and Pakistan.
|
|
Agree
10-01-2004 3:27 pm
|
Report this post
|
More than one surface
Agree with the concept of having more 2/3 surfaces supported at the international level. This will give hockey in all countries a chance to increase the player base. Facts are hockey in it's current form is loosing it's international appeal and support and the rot will continue unless something is done. The more countries that can play the better for the sport longer term.
|
|
ND
10-01-2004 4:51 pm
|
Report this post
|
Funny
Mr Khan is going crazy. I am an Indian Asian. Played on both grass and Astro.
Do play on grass sometime but hate it.
Get real Mr Khan. Wimbledon hockey very funny..
How about mud hockey.
|
|
ND
10-01-2004 4:56 pm
|
Report this post
|
Hockey being not popular has nothing to do with the surface. Problem is FIH is not doing anything to promote hockey.
example : US has turfs even in high schools and look how many play field hockey?
Almost none.
|
|
MILP
10-01-2004 5:20 pm
|
Report this post
|
Mr PLIM:
Why have you seen a good game after so many years??? Turf has been around for 20 yrs now.. did it take the you guys 20 yrs to get 2 good games ?? PLIM ..stop fronting and bugger off!!
Fallen angels have nothing to do with "POPULARITY" of the sport. The day you can get 50.000 people to come and watch "LONG_FIELD_Billiards" we'll agree that you can even have a say as to how the game is played!!!
For now listen to what we say and follow. We allowed you guys too much leevay on deciding how this game is played. Its nearly in ruins!!! It has to compete with sports like "beach volleyball" for prime time!!!
Gotta go back to my pocket billiards game ..the heat is on..left winning by 4 slaps!!
|
|
Salman Aziz
10-01-2004 6:44 pm
|
Report this post
|
Grass and Turf are not the Issue Its the RULES!!! DO READ THIS
Well The Grass v Turf argument is a debatable, both with pros and cons, but its not really the surface thats killing the game, Europeans talk of dominating the sport, well India may have lost it ages ago but Pakistan was and still is in cotention for the TOP4 atleast until 2000 was certainly there, they even won the 1994 world cup. What has hurt the game is the change of DAMN Rules, TAKE OFFSIDE RULE, That is just MAKING MOCKERY of the sport, you keep one man in the Shooting D and he waits for a blunder or scoop the ball over the ground to him and he wraps it up. Without the OFF SIDE rule Pakistan and Australia dominated the sport a lot more than Europeans, and if it comes to turf without the Astroturf Europeans will never be able to dominate for it surely takes lots of skill to control the ball on grass then turf, I HAVE PLAYED On both surfaces for years, and any one who thinks there aint a difference well tell him to shut up n experience it. Now what do the Europeans do like Spain, they know they cant beat PAKISTAN on an open game, so just close down the sport, kill the fun, give 4 long passes and get the ball to the TOP man how is always hanging there over the defenders THANX TO THE NO OFFSIDE RULE, and he slots it in, i saw a couple of goals with just 4 long pushes in the Olympics, harldy any fun. I say WHY HAVE OPPOSITION, just put a jagged course and the Team with least passes to score goals win, HOCKEY LIKE ANY GOOD SPORT HAD A CHARM, MEN USED TO UTILISE THE SKILLS TO TAKE THE BALL TO THE OPPOSITIONS CIRCLE BREAKING THERE DEFENSIVE TRAPS. I AM SURE THESE RULES MAKE SHAHBAZ AHMED SEEMS LIKE AN IDIOT WHO MADE THE HISTORIC 75 YARDS RUN in the Semi vs AUSTRALIA in 1994. WHY ALL THAT WHEN YOU CAN KEEP ONE MAN ON TOP OF THE D to keep the defenders busy with him and Give some big long passes, he will get hold of one and hope to slot it in the back of the net.
AND OTHER CRAP RULE IS ROLLING SUBSTITUTIONS, Some fun you can virtually replace the whole team in 10 mins time. ITS THIS SOME KIND OF A JOKE OR WE PLAYING A SPORT, IMAGINE SOCCER TEAMS LIKE REAL MADRID DO ROLLING SUBSTITUTE, well they can buy worlds best 22 and REPLACE THE WHOLE TEAM EVERY FEW MINS and you have TOP 22 players who can DESTROY teams WHEN ONE SET OF PLAYERS AINT WORKING. IMAGE RONALDO AND RAUL OFF AND HENRY AND NISTELROY IN. BOY HOW WUD DEFENDERS STOP EM. WHAT IS THE PHYSICAL TEST OF THE PLAYERS if they cant last 80% of the game time.
WAKE UP FIH Its not just India and Pakistan that need restructuring its FIH iteself, FIH instead of messing with the beautiful sport that HOCKEY WAS even on TURF with old rules, should be concentrating on PROMOTING THE SPORT WHICH IS DYING FOR SURE, When i was a kid HOCKEY IN OUR SUB CONTINENT was biggest Spectator Sport before the turf came and along with it Sharjah Cricket. NOW the younger generation doesnt even know what HOCKEY really is and what LEGENDS the subcontinent produced. They maybe be knowing more of NBA, than HOCKEY, how popular is ICE HOCKEY outside US or take American Football (a game played with hands mostly a Britisher once said and they call it football) yet our kids wud probably know more of it then FIELD HOCKEY which i am sure is by far a more popular sport.
I AM SURE Even thou Europe is doing good its not making the sport BIG, Take cricket for example, how few TEST playing nations JUST 10 it has (consider 8 proper really) but it makes big money, PROFESSIONAL SPORTs live on money too and they mint a lot from AUSTRALIA, UK, INDIA and PAKISTAN, they are a huge market then the whole EUROPE, so if you got to get popularity Get the public interest and those four will bring you plently, MAKE HOCKEY LOOK LIKE HOCKEY, FORGET THE TURF TO BE THE FIRST ISSUE, WE CAN EXPERIMENT ON IT, WHEN THE SPORT IS ON THE UP OR IF NEEDED TO BOOST IT FURTHER, TURF, CLAY, GRASS MAY ALL BE EXPERIMENTED.
FANS WANT MEN LIKE HASAN SARDAR, SAMIULLAH, SHAHBAZ AHMED even LIJTMENS AND BOUWALENDER OF HOCKEY and I am sure none of them will call this HOCKEY, THE OLDEST OLYMPIAN an Indian Born Pakistani (who won the first gold for India in 1928 when India and Pakistan were British Colony) recently was interviewed on his 100 Birthday, he stated on todays sport as THEY MAYBE PLAYING WITH HOCKEY STICKS, BUT I CANT CALL IT HOCKEY, HOCKEY WAS A GRACEFUL SPECTACULAR SPORT. I AM SURE ANY HOCKEY LEGEND BE IT AN INDIAN, PAKISTANI, AUSTRALIAN or EUROPEAN will call it the SAME, Ric Charlesworth called for Change of RULES and he AINT AN INDIAN OR PAKISTANI, and he even proved that even change of PC will help the Pakistanis more than damaging them.
PROBABLY THE SIDE CORNER RULE CHANGE FROM GOAL LINE TO SIDE LINE MAYBE FOUND AS ACCEPTABLE, NOW IT MIGHT BE DEBATEABLE TOO, BUT MAYB I CAN ACCEPT THAT, BUT NONE OF THE ABOVE.
SO FORGET THE SURFACE FIRST. LET US ALL FANS(ASIAN AND EUROPEAN) AND SUPPORTERS OF THE GAME JOIN HANDS WITH HOPE AND PRAY AND SEND OUR SENTIMENTS AND WISHES TO FIH TO SAVE THE SPORT RATHER THAN PLEASE A FEW. AND CHANGE THE DAMN RULES.
COMMENTS are welcome, i know people will even oppose to this but they must realise its the Rules that are killing the game not surface most importantly.
|
|
Ms V
10-02-2004 3:09 am
|
Report this post
|
Firstly I ust say there are many sides to the argument of why hockey is not 'up there' as a sport, howeer, I am happy to give my comments on Salman Aziz...
Whilst I think the advance of rule changes shows foresight, we must be careful not to make too many changes. FIH have a mantra that allows many countries to trial rules that they may put into international play, this is foreward thinking. But... perhaps it is too prominant.
Salman, I believe that the abolishment of the offside rule was fantastic. It brings the keeper into the game, and it makes all players work harder all over the field. It brought a fantastic dimension into the game. By stating your comment of 'putting a player in/on the D, well, coaches figured out quick smart all that would achieve was putting a 'man' out of play for most of the game, and in very few circumstances did this aid their own team. Very short sighted.
Other rule changes are more debatable.
All this said, I do not think players will EVER, (can I be strong enough) at an international level ever want to go back to grass. Perhaps more effort should be put into seing the value of grass hocey skills, the transfer into turf, and the ultimate merge of both towards the sports ultimate level - interntional.
(May I mention here that I think many of the skills lacking from up and coming players is their lack of playing on grass - turf babies. This gives them so much, before perfecting skills on turf, and I believe can be instrumental in their development.)
|
|
Prabhjyot Singh Madan
10-02-2004 7:56 am
|
Report this post
|
Once more !!!
there is no one man upship with regards to 3 surfaces.... all hail....astroturf ...clay and grass.......:-) just have it all to make the game more popular. When you tell a kid that son u can only play in astroturf in international hockey and not on any other surface then he does not want to play it because he does not feel as a part of the game when the world governing body is not endorsing it......and anyways bring the offside rule back also...brings back these lld rules and do not kill asian hockey because without asia.......hockey game will just up in flames and we will write it's obituary...it is already in ICU :-) no matter what people say but it is fact in asia. get the rules and surface nonsense aside with a little common sense and then hope for the best :-)
|
|
mainframe
10-02-2004 5:07 pm
|
Report this post
|
about the no offside rule
I have known days where pakistan would score a goal , and the umpire would disallow it , saying that somebody was offside. Or blow the whistle for off side when somebody would be in a very good scoring position even though they were not off side. I for one was and am happy that the no off side rule is in place . sure the europeans have an advantage , but at least we can work at it . I would rather be beaten by the other team , then the umpire. Its just one less factor for the umpire to influence the outcome of the game.
|
|
NA
10-02-2004 7:55 pm
|
Report this post
|
can any of the turf supporters answer this
1. Why should turf be the only valid surface when all cannot afford it?
2. How will poor countries pay for the turf, when Hockey does not draw crowds?
3. Does'nt playing on turf kill the attractive skill game that exists on grass and make teams seem to have the same style, how can this be good?
4. Can you see the majority of hockey in India and pakistan being played on turf?
This could go either way. Hockey may be so small that only a handful of people who have access to turf play it . Like it is in European countries.
I agree that some rule changes are idiotic but how can anyone miss the point that hockey has become a diffrent sport to play with all the changes in equiment and surface . In the sub continent there is no motivation for new people to play unless something changes drastically like a surface change.
For the people who love the sport , hockey needs a KISS- (Keep It Simple Stupid) to survive , I don't see anything else helping as much. I think Aslam sees this too..
|
|
Ishwar Murthy
10-02-2004 11:34 pm
|
Report this post
|
To NA
Could'nt have said it better myself!
The Astro buffs just don't get it! In India, astro turfs are simply not economically viable. Hockey therefore is simply not accessible to most of India. This is true in most developing nations. Those knuckle heads at FIH simply don't understand this. I am amazed to hear arguments like "maybe they should apply to FIH for funding of astro turfs". That is it, we will always be at the receiving end!
|
|
Hockey for all
10-03-2004 1:07 am
|
Report this post
|
Think outside the box
Hockey should abandon the World Cup and follow the format of tennis and golf or even Formula One Grand Prix. Forget about trying to follow soccer, hockey will always be a poor cousin.
It should be played on various surfaces ie: grass, sand turf, water turf, etc. Have Grand Slam events to be hosted by the major powers of hockey with prize money. The host have the right to decide on the surfaces to be played on. Pakistan and India can choose to play on grass, Europe can play on Artificial surface, and Oceania and Africa can decide on which surface they want to play on or they can try to be good on all surfaces.
Northern Hemisphere can hold their tournaments during their summer, while likewise Southern hemisphere tournaments will be held during their summer. Asia can hold their tournaments in between. This will ensure at least 6 to 8 top-level hockey tournament will be played on a constant basis and keep the interest in the sport going. Tournaments could be ranked by stars, with 5-star status being offering a minimum amount of prize money with all the top teams playing, while say 3-star being second tier teams which will provide experience and exposure. Give naming right to sponsors during these tournaments. It will ensure television coverage and promote the game to a wider audience.
It will be a true test of a teams' greatness and a truly great team is one that wins on all surfaces, just like tennis players. Even Formula One have different circuits, such as purpose built tracks, the oval and street circuit.
Give hockey a chance. It is a truly great sport. It is a sport which is equally exciting to watch from the stands or on television. Give nations the opportunity to play on their nominated surfaces. Variety is good for the game, Wimbledon may be played on grass, but the British players also played on all other surfaces.
It takes courage and foresight to make changes .............
|
|
namelessderro
10-03-2004 1:22 am
|
Report this post
|
To Ishwar Murthy
maybe you dont get our point of view, YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY HOCKEY PLAYING COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. What is best for you is not neccesarily best for ever other country in the world. It wasnt jsut europe that decided on astroturf, it was almost every other country in the world as well.
Now that you have tried playing on turf and dont like it that is not our fault. And dont try and make the excuse that you cant afford enough turfs, because all you need is one or two turfs minimum for your national squads and development squads to train on.
Now stop complaining just because your national team is not to the same skill level as the others at the moment, its not our fault, maybe you need to look at how YOUR governing body is promoting the sport
|
|
NA
10-03-2004 10:18 am
|
Report this post
|
to namelessderro
You are a perfect example of the mentality of FIH and btw wealthy nations are not the only places where hockey is played. If turf works for you does not men it works for everyone. We are still suggesting that turf be reatined but other surfaces be introduced.
FIH like you plays big brother with European mentality that has almost killed a good sport. Its clear you guys don't get it.
Also most Asians like playing on turf but cannot afford it. Turf also results in most injuries to players. The concrete base in harmful to legs this is a fact. I would support having tournaments on:
1. Turf
2. Grass
3. Clay
This is isssue is here to stay lets hope we can influence FIH.
|
|
mili
10-03-2004 12:30 pm
|
Report this post
|
i'm not agree
Came back to grass is the same that we came back to the past...intead of evolute, we go back...it's totally ridiculous!
|
|
namelessderro
10-03-2004 8:52 pm
|
Report this post
|
to NA
no maybe you missed the main part of my argument. we dont care if u watn to play on grass, you can play on grass we have nothing against that, the only level at which the FIH can control wat surface is used is at international level.
At international level it does not matter how many turfs the country has, they only need one to be able to play on. And im sure if you asked the international standard players wether they would be happy to go back and play on grass the overwhelming majority would tell you that if it went back to grass they would not play.
|
|
razwan
10-04-2004 5:20 am
|
Report this post
|
grasss????????/
just crazyt so say things like that. india and pakistan have to chage there style and forget gras please.
|
|
Jimmy
10-04-2004 5:46 am
|
Report this post
|
Get real..
And what makes Indians and some Pakis believe they are unbeatable on grass ? If my memory serves me right the then West Germany won an olympic gold on grass with all those "grass masters" on show.
Likewise I never heard any complaints from the Pakis when they won the world cup in 94 on turf. Why wasn't it an issue then ? India too have been Asian champions both at the junior and senior level playing on what surface ?
Adapt guys and you'll go places. You cannot tell me you cannot reproduce your skills on turf, if anything it's easier or tell me how Shabaz did that 75 mtr. run in Australia ?
|
|
Mixed opinion
10-04-2004 5:48 am
|
Report this post
|
As a european i would be interested to hear anybody's comments on what i said earlier: why dont pakistan and india appeal to the FIH (or local government, sports councils, etc) for investment in new pitches in order to develop players for the future?
I know this isnt exactly what is being said in the article but i think it would be an option in europe. Are there not the opportunities for such a step in Pakistan? I'm not trying to provoke an argument, im just interested.
|
|
NA
10-04-2004 12:04 pm
|
Report this post
|
to nameless
well why does FIH want to restrict a surface and choose one which is non representative of what most people play the game on. This is insane. So people in most nations outside europe learn to play on one surface and then learn again to play on turf. Obviosly this works well for Europena nations. Why the restriction and why to a surface which
- is expensive
- not widely available
- causes more injuries
- is environmentally unfriendly
I think you miss the point that playing on turf needs adjustment when you play on grass most of the time. This is what is so hard for people in the west to understand. As for players if you really think players will not like it , did FIH ask the players before putting the restriction in the first place. If more surfaces will increase the number of people playing the game FIH should do it. Its only fair.
|
|
Observer
10-04-2004 12:10 pm
|
Report this post
|
Support grass
I think Aslam should get the support of players and federations to support this. I am sure grass will help the game. Well said NA , Ishwar
|
|
Grass Support
10-04-2004 12:14 pm
|
Report this post
|
FIH may be taking money from Turf companies
FIH since you cannot make money from crowds , you surely must be filling your pockets from turf vendors. Why the restriction who does this benefit??
|
|
dekko
10-04-2004 5:32 pm
|
Report this post
|
GRASS
Let's get smokin'. You gotta be off your heads!!
|
|
savanghi
10-04-2004 8:58 pm
|
Report this post
|
re: grass v. astro turf
Since Europeans are obsessed with astro-turf and South Asians are in love with grass, there should be a compromise. Let us blend the best of astro-turf (true bounce) with the qualities of grass (slower ball movement). How about NexTurf? Why don't the IHF and the PHF raise the issue of NexTurf with the FIH? Also, India need better quality players and better coaches from the grass roots level.
We also need to bring back the off-side rule, which does not give the attacking side an unfair advantage. I did watch the Germany v. Spain bronze medal game. It was so boring! There were mostly one touch long passes and overhead lobs to penetrate the rival defense.
The drag flick needs to be abolished, and the penalty corner hit should be revived. In the India-Pakistan test in New Delhi, Dilip Tirkey got badly hurt trying to defend his goal against the world's most potent weapon, Sohail Abbas. Not only did he get hurt, his team was penalized with a penalty stroke awarded against it for the offense of touching the ball with his body! What other defensive weapon is there to protect your own goal against such a lethal weapon as Sohail Abbas' drag flick? Let us abolish the drag flick before more players get hurt. If you want to keep the penalty corner, then keep only the old fashioned penalty corner.
Let us make the side corner more potent. The defending team shall defend its goal with 4 defenders and the goalkeeper against 7 players of the attacking team in the new side corner inside the 25 yard line of the defending team. The attacking team intentionally hitting a player of the defending team to earn a penalty corner or a penalty stroke should be penalized with the ball brought back within the 25 yard line of the purposely offending team.
Let us keep the rolling substitution. Let us do away with the sidelines and keep only the goal lines. When the ball rolls over the side lines, there are push-ins, which are not needed since they slow down the game.
Here's wishing Dilip Tirkey a speedy recovery. We want NexTurf now! Also, no more drag flicks.
FIH is controlled by white folks who want to keep astro-turf and and to keep changing the rules so as to dominate this sport. I am having second thoughts on conspiracies. Till a few days ago, I did not believe that there was a conspiracy. But now I am having second thoughts. There is no question that there is a white conspiracy going on.
|
|
Jongseong Park
10-04-2004 11:56 pm
|
Report this post
|
Conditional support for grass
As a Korean who played in Africa, I have lots of problems with turf being the only official surface. Natural grass (or mud with patches of grass) was all I played on. I'm sure there are lots of benefits to playing on turf. When I came to the US to study and got to hit a bit on turf, many of these benefits were obvious. However, to this day I find natural grass the more natural surface to play on because that's what I grew up on. Believe me, it is quite an adjustment to make.
Given a choice, I would have loved to have grown up playing on turf, but that wasn't an option. It's not an option in most parts of Asia and Africa. In Korea we're even tearing down basically the only turf in the country to convert into a football pitch. The hockey players who grow up in regions where turf is unavailable are put at a distinct disadvantage because of the FIH surface being limited to turf.
I still think the World Cup should be held on turf, but it may be a good idea to allow natural grass as an alternative surface. Tennis allows multiple surfaces, and each different surface helps showcase different styles of play. If hockey were really popular, this would also happen with the introduction of multiple surfaces. But at this point, my argument is that grass should be added as an official surface because it's what hundreds of thousands of potential future hockey stars grow up playing on, not by choice but by necessity.
|
|
Real Hockey
10-05-2004 7:10 pm
|
Report this post
|
Hockey for all
Before astro-turf was introduced, hockey was a truly international sport. It was played with passion and plenty of excitement. No teams from any particular continent were able to truly dominate the game. Each play to their own styles and to their own strength. When teams play, it was more a battle of styles and at the end the results were pretty balanced.
Since the introduction of astro-turf and wholesale changes to the rules, this modern game of hockey can no longer lay claim to be HOCKEY as we used to know it. It is an entirely different game altogether. It's almost criminal to even call it hockey. Even the president of FIH suggest that to be successful, one has to take the european approach and play the european style. In other words, when grass was replaced with artificial turf, the international game was made redundant and replaced with the european version.
When the game was truly international, the europeans were already tagged as boring and defensive. That clearly explains why the game is not gettng anywhere and is as boring as ever. Hockey was a truly exciting international sport then because the asian teams gives us excitement and entertainment. They were like Brazil was to soccer. Can you imagine FIFA president telling soccer playing nations to play like Germany because defensive soccer with plenty of passing maneouvre is exciting?
I would say leave it up to the hockey playing nations to decide on the surface they want to play on. Artificial turf is not freely available like grass, and in poorer asian countries it is turning into an elite sport. European nations will always have a great advantage on artificial turf due to this imbalance. Free up the game, give HOCKEY its real meaning back.
|
|
Westralian
10-06-2004 6:13 am
|
Report this post
|
Grass is for potheads
Grass hockey...*uncontrolled laughter*...Sorry where was I? Oh yes...It doesn't matter how many tactics you may have had hammered into your head over the years through juniors and into seniors, but grass hockey always comes down to "HIT THE BLOODY BALL AS HARD AND LONG AS YOU CAN!"
Now I agree that modern hockey on synthetic surfaces has a rather robotic quality to it and is more or less only attractive to those who already play the game, but I don't think grass is the answer. Are you honestly trying to tell me that seeing 22 people belting @#$%! out of a ball from one end to another (much like a tennis match) is going to be a sexy image to rekindle interest in the game, and serve the purpose of improving the health of hockey on the subcontinent? I DON'T THINK SO!
I may not have the answers for boosting the profile of hockey in India and Pakistan, but grass definitely IS NOT one of them. Unless of course you want international competition to be very much like country hockey - Now that IS fun to watch. Grass hockey with hip and shoulder tackles, tripping, swinging the stick head high, and a punchup or 10... THAT'S IT! We'll combine hockey with "professional wrestling." It's bound to get em through the gates - PROBLEM SOLVED!
|
|
Darwin
10-06-2004 7:48 am
|
Report this post
|
Another Idea
Since we're anti-evolution with the suggestion of throw-back surfaces. Why don't we bring back the sun-dial as the standard timing mechanism of sport.
|
|
NA
10-06-2004 10:28 am
|
Report this post
|
Westralian and Darwin
Its clear you have nothing to say and no ideas , pretty much like FIH. Its also clear you have notplayed and seen good hockey on grass. Well maybe no Sun dial but Solar powered clocks are real and environmentally freindly like grass and unlike TURF.
The point is that surface restriction has not helped hockey so we should open it up. In the end if hockey moves towards a particular surface in terms of support from players, touranament revenues etc. then so be it. Whats the point of stipulating an expensive surface for poor countries this insane, its unfortunate that people in the federation do not have basic commonsense and nobody is fighting for the large part of the world that does not have enough turfs..
|
|
Evolve
10-06-2004 11:33 am
|
Report this post
|
To Darwin
Darwin evolution for hockey would means increasing the base and popularity not decreasing, playing with space age gear will not pull crowds. Wake up and smell the coffee or maybe another futuristic concoction of chemicals from a galaxy far far away , if you prefer that!
|
|
Salman Aziz
10-06-2004 3:42 pm
|
Report this post
|
Writing Again! its more Rules and Promoting Image that Surface
Well Think about its the DAMN STUPID so called INOVATIVE RULES that are the biggest thing that ruined the SPORT. AND ADD TO THAT THEIR IS NO REAL PROMOTION OF THE SPORT. SURFACE COMES LATER. PAKISTAN HAS WON GOLD and WORLD CUP ON THE NEW SURFACE, AND A COUPLE OF CTs, I dont really THINK TURF Will matter MUCH IF WE ABOLISH STUPID RULES LIKE
NO OFFSIDE & ROLLING SUBSTITUTIONS
Oh and to the Europeans who claim to be so good on Astroturf as if they start crawling on them as a baby, DONT U THINK THE ABOVE TO RULES REALLY FAVOUR THE EUROPEAN STYLE HEAVILY. Since they dont do much stick work or attacking ASIAN Hockey. You need great skills to break down denfenses in No Offside Rules, and Rolling Substitution is a JOKE altogether.
A lot many Offside judgements maybe have been given in the past, but atleast that was bearable than this CRAP.
Signing out, Oh why dont we bring COSMIC DUST FIELDS from OUTER SPACE I am sure the Europeans will be able to afford it, and then claim it to be the new official surfrace. ASIAN race on, lets get more money and wait for new stupid RULES.
LETS END THIS ASIAN v EUROPEAN ISSUE PEOPLE NOW, and THINK ABOUT IMPROVING THE IMAGE OF THE SPORT AND BRINGING BACK RULES THAT MADE HOCKEY LOOK HOCKEY INSTEAD OF TRYING TO PROVE STYLES. HOCKEY COMES FIRST THEN COME STYLES.
|
|
interested
10-06-2004 5:09 pm
|
Report this post
|
can't believe my eyes
I have read the above comments and cannot believe that people even consider taking steps back to playing grass hockey. For the record, in europe and Australia hockey is still being played on grass. So it is not just in the Asian countries.
Pakistan were in 1994 World Champions on Astroturf, Sydney! No complaints.
Why is it that 10 years later that you guys are complaining that you want to go back to grass
yes I understand, more options, grass and clay added to astroturf, but hockey is not tennis. Hockey is a progressive sport that CAN be played on various playing fields. If you choose to play your national competition on another surface it doesn't necessarily mean that FIH have to play the International tournaments on those surfaces.
Why is it that the Soccer federation is looking into astroturf? It is a PROGRESSION!! Hockey is the progressive sport that other sports look to. Video analyse was introduced into hockey by the dutch (i think) and now everyone is using it, including the asian teams. Soccer is also moving into that sort of technology.
What you guys are saying can be related to another sport. Let's say basketball
Because basketball is in the Asian countries, for example played on cement courts, The NBA or World championships should also be played on cement. I wonder if Micheal Jordan could jump so high then!
what you are proposing is ridiculous. I for one would leave the game if FIH were to steep so low as to 'go back to grass'. if they go back to grass go back to the roll in for P.C's, throw offside back in the game, long corners from the sideline, stop the corners with your hand and bully off to start the game. If you take a step back go all the way!
This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read over hockey, and I have read alot over hockey
|
|
VJ
10-06-2004 9:31 pm
|
Report this post
|
interested get real
Interested come on you are smoking something funny if you think hockey is progressive. Its a dying sport that no one watches . Wake up and check the stats my friend , FIH changes are not working !
As for playing basketball on cement . The sport is insignificant in India unlike hockey which is the national sport and was among the most watched till Europeans ruined it. Progressive come again! When was the last time you looked at the stands. Pick the biggest game in hockey and count the spectators , I don't think it will be very difficult. Muliplte surfaces will be a great idea and some rules are ridiculous and should be changed. If there was a forum like this ten years back in India people would talk besides in the Idiots in the federations in India and Pakistan did not see the issue , I bet they do not even now.
|
|
namelessderro
10-08-2004 3:36 am
|
Report this post
|
VJ
ok so let me get this straight, we dont care about other sports cause they are not significant in India, and we should change the surface to grass because india sucks on turf.
Well gee you are really making a great argument ( no that was sarcasm) See the thing that is lacking from your articles is why is will be good for international hockey, you all seem to be saying. But think about India for a second, well here is a hint, try thinking about the other countrys as well.
You keep saying that European countrys dont care about India, well Your just a hipocrit, try looking at what you wrote and tell us that u think about otehr country, i sure know that i couldnt do it
|
|
PLIM
10-12-2004 7:36 am
|
Report this post
|
NAMELESSDERRO IS SPOT ON
The argument originates from India/Pakistan etc not being the forces they once were and as always it has to be someone elses fault and nothing at all to do with their own failings.
We here this so often and it is sooo boring. GB won gold in Seoul and are now rubbish but we do not want to roll back time we want to look forward and improve. If you guys spent half the time looking at yourselves rather than trying to find fault elsewhere I am sure improvements would be made. But no you find it easier to play the DISCRIMINATION card and bleat on about hardships.
A hint for you stop relying on Pilay fix the corruption in your sport then come back with a decent argument and not knee jerk reactionary crap.
|
|
Andy Greenhalgh
11-02-2004 10:17 am
|
Report this post
|
Holding world hockey to ransom!
If Pakistan an India have fallen behind the rest of the world supposivly due to the declination of grass pitches, then this is what is called evoloution, i.e. if you don't evolve then you die. India and pakistan need to accept progression, what is being requested in this instance is like suggesting in soccer that pitches are made with longer grass and the balls heavier and more sluggish so as to destroy the quick flowing and explosive game and return it to its former days (really old football was rubbish). Hockey needs to develop into a fast exciting good to watch game and by all means this is exactly what is happening talk of grass pitches is for festivals and vet's games.
|
|
|
|
 |
HOME | FEATURES | CLUBHOUSE | CAMPS | LINKS | ABOUT US | STORE | ADVERTISE
Use of this site is subject to certain Terms & Conditions.
|
|
|
x55
