2012 is just starting, and rumours are already swirling about junior hockey being pushed around again.

SHA is rumoured to be proposing that in 2013 every PL1 (ie top level) club must have its own boys Under 17 team. This is despite SHA's members voting in 2010 to scrap the dwindling Under 17 Boys competition and replace it with a (hugely successful) Mixed Under 17 competition.

Under 17 Boys are the last step in junior development before SHA's men-only Sydney comp. Like everyone, SHA is concerned about junior player development in Sydney. Junior player numbers (particularly boys) have been falling for years. In 2007 there were 230 U17 boys registered in Sydney, but in 2011 it had fallen 25% to 176. SHA has an eye on its own longevity and hopes to lock in a stream of new men to fill its ranks each year. Perhaps there is a belief that making the major clubs put whole teams of Under 17 boys on the SHA conveyor belt by 2013 will guarantee player numbers in the short and long term and promote the sport of hockey.

If you believe all junior hockey clubs and players have the same objectives as SHA it certainly sounds pretty simple. And if you believe junior hockey clubs can manufacture team-loads of Under 17 boys in just a season or two it sounds damn near perfect. Both beliefs, though, are up there with the tooth fairy.

U17s are the top of the junior development pyramid. The decline in U17 numbers reflects the decline in numbers of boys across all age groups. This is a decade(s) old problem and there is no miracle cure. U17s are just a symptom of the problem. The true problem is the decline in Under 9s and Under 11s, who form the foundations of the hockey player pyramid. 

If Sydney wants 50% more U17 boys, it probably has to increase the number of U11 boys by at least 50%. This will take a few years. Clubs then have to work like crazy to keep these boys involved in hockey notwithstanding the significant attractions of other sports and activities. If the clubs are lucky, in a further six (yes, 6!) years Sydney will then have 50% more U17 players. From start to finish it will take up to a decade to fix this concern, and that assumes the junior clubs don't give up on boys altogether because they have been booted out of PL1 during that decade!

A few other practical issues would arise if this proposal were indeed true.

Firstly, ditching the girls and reverting to an all-boys competition sounds like a recipe for an anti-discrimination action and for the loss of Government funding. Hockey needs Government funding, and we don't want the negative publicity. Scrapping the mixed U17 competition will not go under the radar. In a city where hockey gets no publicity, this competition was perhaps the only mixed junior sporting competition in all of Sydney to have two glowing stories in the SMH's FitzFiles in 2011. It's on the radar.

Secondly, the maths and practicalities say that forcing an U17 boys-only competition on Sydney would cause a decline in the number of Sydney U17 boys players. It's not what people might want to see when they wear their rose-tinted glasses, but let's look at the realities:

• There were 176 registered U17 boys in Sydney in 2011, and they played in 16 U17 teams. Let's be optimistic and assume no decline in player numbers in 2012 or 2013;

• Eight of the 16 teams came from just three clubs (Sutho, Ryde and the NWS/ND/Baulko grouping) so we can assume around half the registered boys also play with them: in reality these three clubs probably have more than 88 U17 boys between them;

• The other half of the boys (say 88) must be spread over the remaining nine PL1 clubs and the other (say) three clubs that aspire to be in PL1. That means they are based on say 12 clubs (it could be more), so each of these clubs has on average a maximum of just seven Sydney boys in U17s. (We assume all clubs are included: surely SHA wouldn't propose that claiming U17 players outside Sydney cuts the mustard for Sydney junior development).

• Seven players is not enough for an U17 team: history shows that in this age group it is not enough for even half a team because of the need to cover absences due to school and family commitments;

• Even if one or two of these 12 clubs have enough boys for a full team, the skill levels across the boys in the team will be variable. That means they will only keep their players only if they play B or C level hockey. The end result would be that the A Pool has just three clubs (boring - and not good for keeping players involved), and the B Pool has the same three clubs plus some others. Look at 2011: the A pool for U17s was (you guessed it) Ryde, Sutho and NWS...along with a composite team from GNS and Sydney Uni which stepped up to make it a real competition. Everyone else chose to be in the North Area or Central Area B Pools, and the games were said to be fun because they were mixed. reality is that in these "one-size-fits-all" teams many boys are going to be frustrated by the mismatch of personal and team average standard, which is always a concern;

• If a club is to be booted out of PL1 because it doesn't have an U17 Boys team, it will certainly encourage its boys to go straight to their remaining men's teams, and not to play U17s for anyone else. Why on earth would they try to help another club stay in PL1 when that club just helped boot them out? Clubs may even encourage U17 boys to play in the mixed comps for other associations but you have to assume their support for SHA/SJHA and its juniors will be Zero in those circumstances

There could be some interim machinations that put lipstick on the pig, but it will still be a pig. For example, clubs could pretend they were fielding a Sydney U17 boy's team by having teams of Under 15 boys, or boys from outside Sydney, or they could start wholesale poaching of U17 boys from each other. (All this goes on now, and clearly it has done nothing to increase total numbers). Causing a club to be booted out of PL1 because other clubs poached its juniors would almost certainly shatter the collegiate relationships necessary for SHA to function effectively. Bring on the lawyers yet again!

So whichever way it goes, forcing clubs to field U17 boys' teams won't address the problem with junior boys' numbers, and will probably reduce the number of boys playing hockey in the short term. This is not good for hockey.

What are the solutions? There is no simple quick-fix. What worked in the past, though - when tennis, rugby league and rugby union were the only alternative winter sports - is unlikely to work in the future.  We need to focus on the things that will make hockey enjoyable and accessible in the current competitive environment. Many different areas require action:

• Access to fields is crucial, and will remain a major issue in Sydney. We do not help ourselves, though, by encouraging so many skilled players from outside Sydney to double up their field time and play in Sydney on the weekends. Having all those extra players is a major reason we cannot get field time for our own Under 9s on weekends. What does that tell us about priorities? 

• Junior hockey must be enjoyable and supporter-friendly. Having children of 11 or 12 (i.e. Under 13) finish their weekly games at 10pm on Friday nights is not child or parent-friendly. Explaining this by saying that the draw needs to let the SHA men finish their games before 9:30pm on Saturday nights just adds fuel to the ire.

• Junior hockey players must feel they belong to a popular sporting culture, but Sydney's current absence of media coverage means juniors feel they are in a sporting twilight zone. The two Fitz File stories on the U17 Mixed competition were rare and welcome exceptions in 2011.

• Indoor hockey is a great fun and is a great recruitment tool when our peer sports are in recess. It should be promoted, not hidden from view.

• Administration needs to be better. Consistency and certainty are very important for junior sport. Parents and club administrators grit their teeth in anger (or throw in the towel) at actual or rumoured policy backflips. These things reflect poorly on them and on all the things they have been trying to achieve with their own parents and players bases over the years. Surely running a sport can't be this hard!!

Sydney must do more to develop hockey. The Mixed Under 17 comp has been a huge boon for this. After all the efforts and achievements, and with a new, re-energised board at SHA, why oh why are there mutterings from the sidelines about it being ditched for something that is likely to send junior hockey backwards? Rumour or truth - either way it's a negative.

An administrator - Jan 2012

As Scott Barker takes over from Aaron Oman as the SUHC Director of Hockey, it's worth reflecting on how good this role is for hockey in Sydney and NSW.

Coaching is competitive. Coaches of club or State teams are wary of telling each other too much because the other guy could use the info to beat your team next time round. Information will often go up the coaching totem pole in any sport, but rarely sideways.

Unfortunately coaches at different level can rarely have the opportunity to share information, o in practice this upwards and downwards information flow is very limited. 

Which brings us to SUHC and the Director of Coaching role. Sydney University has a proud history of local and even national success across a range of sports. Its cricket, rugby, water-polo and women's basketball teams, for example, are currently some of the best club teams in Australia. SU's coaches include some of Australia's best in a range of sports, and its network of past players and supporters provides a unique means to facilitate further development opportunities for players and coaches.

SUSF and SUHC have seen the potential from having these skilled coaches from different sports come together to share their experiences. There is no rivalry because they are all in different fields, but they all want to work together to apply new and old coaching methods to enable their own athletes and teams to maximise their potential. These coaches all work at the same institution, so there isa great framwork and environment for them to meet regularly, formally or informally, to share information and discuss experiences.

SUHC created the Director of Coaching role so hockey coach could participate in this valuable process. This means all of SU's hockey coaches - particularly the Premier squad ones - can benefit from this huge pool of sporting knowledge within SU. That knowledge then moves to the broader hockey community. Aaron, for example, coaches a range of teams including the SJHA U17/1 boys and the HNSW Waratahs. Liam Cole coaches SUHC Women 2nds and now UNSW men's.  Even if our Masters A team would prefer to beat UNSW in a Grand Final before we share anything, the fact is that the information from SU will make its way to other hockey players and other hockey clubs soon.

Everyone talks about helping the hockey community, but actions speak louder than words. We think our contribution through this Director of Coaching role is unique amongst the hockey clubs of NSW, and possibly Australia. SUSF and SUHC should take a bow for a great initiative.

Jan 2012- SUHC

As a self confessed political geek, I spent my last few weeks of gainful employment back in May watching every second of the UK's first hung parliament unfold.  Little did I expect that my second vote of the year in a much more dull and unimaginative campaign would result in a similar outcome.  A key point that stuck with me from David Cameron's election campaign was his focus on "The Big Society", believing that individuals and groups should have more control over their destiny, empowering the people to work together towards a collectively better outcome.  "These are the things you do because it is your passion" Cameron quoted. 

As humans we are naturally drawn to working with other people and flourish in the group setting.  Key theorists have pointed to the Human desire for affiliation (McClelland), Social Needs (Maslow) and symbolic interaction, whereby we only recognise our true self through interactions with others (GH Mead).  The onset of technology has also given birth to the "virtual organisation", featuring almost absolute empowerment with self forming & self regulating teams achieving collective outcomes - see the rise in the open source software movement.  Social Networking has allowed us to communicate in entirely new ways and share information globally in real time - could anyone have pictured this even as the Sydney Olympic torch was lit merely 10 years ago?

Now how does this relate to Hockey and SUHC may you ask?  Well to be honest both face major problems and without some kind of change, our sport is likely to become more and more difficult to develop and sustain in the long run.  The Australian Sporting market is one of the most competitive in the world and it is a genuine market, there are actual trade offs involved.  During your school days you of course have multiple options and its great to see kids being able to play AFL one day and soccer another.  However come late teens into your university years and then into work, time becomes more and more of a scarse commodity (think exams, parties, beer, jobs etc).  This is when the real trade offs begin, team sport vs no sport at all, rugby vs hockey, afl vs rugby etc etc.  The key sporting codes in Australia have recognised this and have spent huge amounts of marketing $ designed to hook kids into a sport from a young age with the idea that they will carry their preferred sport through youth into adulthood.  As humans we value order and predictability, vis a vis we will stick to what we know best, form a group and continue on with a certain degree of loyalty to the sporting code that is most attractive.  The AFL "Aus Kick" program is probably the best example of this in the market. 

Where does this leave Hockey?  It is no secret the sport is underfunded - (you only have to look at one of the worlds best players Jamie Dwyer having to drive himself home in a Hyundai after an International game the other week to see that).  Hockey relies on the use of purpose built facilities, thus giving away a competitive advantage to its key rivals Soccer, AFL and Rugby which can be played on any patch of grass (even the precious Sydney Uni Square!).  Participation in Hockey is still healthy, but in Sydney there is a real danger that this could be seriously dented in the next decade without some serious changes.  Hockey NSW in preparing their recent White Paper have sought to address this problem by advocating a program of change; yet have been met with staunch resistance from certain clubs and associations wishing to keep the status quo.  "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is their cry.  However a more appropriate way of thinking should be "If it ain't broke.....it soon will be".

From a club perspective as well, we face dwindling numbers of members putting themselves forward to help out, which brings me back to David Cameron's "Big Society".  Australia has always been renown for her collective spirit, everyone chipping in to help everyone else, putting your "mate" first.  Perhaps this was an inspiration for Cameron, one only had to look at the reunion of the Sydney Olympic volunteers two weeks ago as an example.  But that was 10 years ago and the harsh reality is that Australia is becoming more and more of an individualist society.  People no longer think "We"; they think "Me".  Maybe this is due to globalization, closer ties to the US, the booming economy, a success driven culture - the list goes on.

As a club, SUHC can not function without volunteers - The Executive, Social Committees, Coaches, Managers, Junior Co-ordinators etc.  Each year the numbers go down and the same group of people therefore have an increased work load.  With an increased workload comes burnout and sadly we loose some great people and the pool becomes thinner.  A change is needed.  This "essay" is not to force the issue, make you feel guilty, laud praise or gain pity for those currently volunteering for the club.  It is to highlight the fact that as a club we must change our culture if we are to be sustainable.  The more people put their hand up the easier it becomes and the more rewarding it becomes.  Take a second to work out what you like the most about being a member of SUHC - I can guarantee you it will be the satisfaction your derive from being part of an amazing group of people.  If we want this to continue, the "big society" ideal is somethings we should look for. 

_{2010 - a Club Player, Club Official and Political Tragic}

Hockey has been very adept at updating its rules to improve the game. Its time to have a serious rethink on short corners.

What is the problem with short corners today? It comes down to the focus on drag flicking, where one team can smash the ball towards the bodies of the other team at any height or speed, and  a set play has a very high likelihood of scoring.  Let's list the main problems with this (in no particular order);

·       It is dangerous - see here for example;

·       It is dangerous;

·       Players target short corners, not field goals;

·       Specialist drag flickers have more control of a game's outcome than all other players;

·       Young players do not like the danger and are discouraged from playing;

·       It is dangerous.

Short corner hits cannot be above a certain height to avoid the obvious danger to players. The FIH rules allow drag flicks in a short corner can be of any height, unless it is dangerous. Flicking has now become endemic to avoid this restriction... thereby recreating the exact danger the `hit' rule wants to avoid. The `disallow when dangerous' aspect of drag flicking is ignored in short corners. Has anyone seen a goal disallowed because the drag flick might have maimed a player on only a slightly different trajectory? And when players are indeed felled, the drag flicker usually gets another chance to do the same on the basis that the first player stopped a legitimate shot on goal with his or her body. 

Other sports have been much more proactive in protecting their players, their reputation and their future when these dangerous situations have become common. Cricket is the best comparison. Batsmen have a ball of similar weight travelling towards them at similar speeds. Now, in cricket, batsmen (particularly juniors) must wear full helmets even though the ball starts some 20m away and they have a little time to evade it. They often wear significant protective padding as well. In hockey the players start just 10m away - and they run at the ball without meaningful protection, if indeed they have any!  Other sports also adapt their rules to ensure new types of play are banned as they emerge. The rugby codes, for example, have banned spear tackles, grapple tackles and tackles of players in the air. Their sports are the better for it.

It appears the AHL will experiment with new rules in 2010 to avoid these shortcomings in penalty corners. Congratulations to them for having the courage to try to make things better. It is only surprising that junior associations haven't already started banning drag flicks in the interests of their players. 

Other sports also try to encourage players to score from the field rather than from penalties close to the goal line.  The rugby codes have a history of reweighting the points allocated to different types of scoring in order to discourage penalty-seeking. Hockey has gone the other way: teams are now universally encouraged to seek a penalty rather than score a goal. And why not; they get the same points for it, and having a player with one specific skill (drag flicking) means teams have a much higher chance of scoring than relying on field goals.  It is highly unlikely that FIH will change the scoring system... so it needs to change the rules of play.

We look forward to seeing how the AHL goes this year. It would be great to have their new rules tried by all our juniors as soon as possible.

2010- A fullback's parent

The Crawford report was released in mid November 2009 and recommended that sport funding be restructured. You can find it on this site or download it here - but its 14.4MB. A very loose summary would be that it recommends that funding be based more on whether a lot of people get involved, rather than on whether a few people win medals. A focus on medals might be great for those involved at the pinnacle of a sport, and great copy for the press, but there is serious doubt that it is a defensible way to benefit everyone who is interested in sport.

We should all understand why Government funding is provided to any group - sporting groups included - and what that group delivers in return. It is being spent, after all, on our behalf. 

The discussion on sport funding degenerated very quickly. Sporting bodies proved surprisingly adept at playing the man and not the ball. The AOC seemed offended that the public's obligation to fund the pursuit of Olympic medal-winning was questioned. Former or current elite athletes who administer sport defended the ongoing expectations of current and future elite athletes. Health professionals were pleased that funding might be directed at preventative action for all, rather than making a few people fitter. Small sports were concerned they would lose their funding to sports that could be self-funding. Self-funding sports were happy that another source of revenue may become available.  Interestingly, no-one seems to question one the Crawford Report's major concerns, which is that we have not collected the data one would expect to have in order to support the current process for sports funding.

The good news for us is that hockey is identified in the Report as one of the sports that is part of the national psyche. It has mass appeal and broad community involvement as well as a well-publicised elite.  The Report says "Swimming, tennis, cricket, cycling, the football codes, netball, golf, hockey, basketball, surfing and surf lifesaving are among the most popular sports in Australia, a part of the national psyche. Many are team sports and are the sports we are introduced to as part of our earliest education and community involvement.

"If more money is to be injected into the system, then we must give serious consideration to where that money is spent. If we are truly interested in a preventative health agenda through sport, then much of it may be better spent on lifetime participants than almost all on a small group of elite athletes who will perform at that level for just a few years."

Discussion on the AOC and the perceived slights to individual athletes is misplaced. The Crawford Reports highlights that we need to understand what we want to achieve with our sports funding before we sign any blank cheques.  If the prime objective is to win medals now, the funds must of course be spent on those at the pinnacle. If the prime objective is to create better competitors in the future, then it is not quite so simple. A common view is that elite performance ultimately depends on the depth of participation, so this is the area that ought to be funded. And if we want to increase the level of community involvement in healthy activities generally, the seems no nexus to elite funding at all. 

The Crawford Report addresses funding for sports on a national level, but the same questions apply to State and even local sporting organisations. At its simplest, should we as a Club, or HNSW, be looking to subsidise lots of Under 9 and Under 11 players, or should we be subsidising a single Premier, State or national player?  "Sport" gets a "benefit" either way, but not all benefits are equal, and they are not equally effective or enduring. 

No doubt the answer will be that everyone wants to cater for both ends of the spectrum, and no doubt (almost)everyone will say they already use funds for both objectives. We should judge people by their actions rather than their words, though. If both objectives are indded targeted we need to assess the current expenditure to determine whether it is actually aimed at striking a fair balance in meeting both objectives. Does the balance in expenditure reflect the intended balance between the objectives? Or more bluntly -  do the expense statements  reflect the Mission Statements?

It is good to see that most of SUHC's expenses are for the members as a whole, not just an elite. Coaching expenses across all grades, SUSF payments and turf hire (a separate story...) are the major items. It is even arguable that SUHC does not dedicate enough time to the elite side of our game given the huge effort we put into the social side.

We should all be asking our hockey administrators how they are spending their funds, and whether the balance of spending meets the balance of their objectives. More importantly, are they sure that the current spending patterns are the best way to meet the sport's longer term objectives?

2009 - a banker

As yet another team finds on Friday that it has to supply its own umpires on Saturday, we have to ask: where have all the umpires gone?

It doesn't matter that SHUA is gone and SHA is running the show, because in the end we are dealing with the same pool of people. So why do fewer and fewer people want to umpire?

I see three major issues: "helping out" is out of fashion, umpiring is getting harder, and umpires are getting less and less support (and more and more unjustified criticism) for doing their job.

Let's generalise, but people are now mostly focussed on what everyone else owes them. Giving something back is seen as a sign of weakness, if it's considered at all. People are less community minded, and that means they are less interested in helping sports by umpiring. The attitude to umpiring is "Why me?" rather than "Why not?" 

The increased focus on individual interests also means people see things in terms of their personal, team or club (tribal?) rights, rather than as part of a bigger picture. If their team or club require it they might umpire, but they have no interest in doing it for something as remote as SHA or HNSW, and certainly not for the sake of some other club.

This is not new. But it is the background to understanding why umpires are becoming scarcer.

The second issue is that umpiring hockey is getting harder. The new materials used in sticks, the new hitting techniques and the ever-improving playing surfaces combine to make hockey an incredibly fast sport. Thie new free hit rule has made it even faster. That may be good for players and spectators, but we have to recognise that it has made things a lot harder for umpires.

Umpires now have to cover more ground more quickly to keep up with play. They have to be almost as fit as the players on the field to do their job properly. If they aren't they simply cannot be in position to see the play and apply the rules consistently. Umpiring has become much more demanding. Umpires know that they are no doubt missing some things because they cannot always get to the right position in time. Rather than umpire badly, many experienced umpires prefer not to umpire at all.

The third issue flows directly from these first two issues. Spectators and players feel aggrieved because they see the things that umpires miss. This happens more and more often with the new rules. And from their perspective of personal rights, the flow of disputed umpiring decisions becomes a personal affront. An umpire might just be applying (more or less correctly) the rules of a game, but people see any sequence of errors as a fundamental breach of their individual rights, and they immediately and vocally criticise the umpire for it.

Worse, this vocal criticism is tolerated - if not encouraged - by some teams and clubs. The whole group is happy to see umpiring errors as a breach of their collective personal rights. Their sense of outrage is then justified because everyone reacts the same way. The umpire may think a decision was part of the ebb and flow of a sporting contest, but it is treated as a personal outrage, regardless of how good or bad it was. The world will not stop turning over one missed transgression, but that s not the perspective of the bellowing spectators.

So we have a vicious circle. Young people are less willing to take up umpiring. Current umpires are finding it increasingly difficult to umpire without making mistakes. Players and spectators are increasingly critical of umpires because of the mistakes. Many experienced umpires don't enjoy the experience of working harder and being abused for it, so they don't want to umpire. They pull out and we have a lower average standard of umpiring. So we have more mistakes, more player and spectator tirades, and even fewer people wanting to umpire. 

Is there a solution?

The first step to solving these problems is that we need MORE umpires for each hockey game. Two umpires are simply not enough to ensure the rules of hockey are applied consistently given its current speed and technicality.

If we had three umpires on the field they would need to run less and they would see more. Lack of supreme fitness wouldn't stop someone being a good umpire. The pool of available umpiring talent would increase because most would-be umpires are not as fit as the players. We would never have enough umpires if they had to be that fit. 

The level of player and spectator dissatisfaction would decrease because the rules would be applied more consistently. That would mean fewer mistakes, less player and spectator outrage, less abuse... and more people willing to umpire.
 
Other sports have had to confront the same issues. As players get stronger and as equipment gets better they are getting faster, but they still want their rules to be applied fairly and properly.  Hockey is possibly the fastest team sport in the world, but it has only two umpires. Lacrosse is the other contender for fastest team sport, and it usually has three on-field umpires.

Slower and more interrupted games almost all have more than two umpires  Rugby union and soccer have three (ref and two touch judges), rugby league now has four (two refs, two touch judges), baseball has up to six while grid-iron and AFL have up to seven (one to three field umpires, two boundary umpires and two goal umpires)! So hockey is probably failing to learn from the experience of others.

The second step is to require players to umpire a number of games each year so they appreciate the umpire's aspect. They could do this in Juniors, Women's, Veterans or Men's, but it should be a pre-requisite to registration in the following year. If a competition has a bye, for example, the players in the team with the bye should be required to umpire the games in their competition that week.  We need to make the players more appreciative of the fact that they are the ultimate beneficiaries of all the work done by all the officials and administrators, and they need to put more back in before we lose the capacity to stage matches.

The third step is to give umpires a greater level of clear public recognition for their skills and achievements. At the simplest level this could be some form of badge or shirt that indicates the grading of umpires, and people know immediately that someone on the field has put in the effort to rise to a particular level.  Junior umpires will often push themselves further if they get public recognition, so we should provide them with some form of recognition every time they take the field, not just when they get to umpire a major game. It could be done in seniors as well as juniors. At the other end of the development spectrum, players and spectators should be less likely to deliver torrents of abuse if they know an umpire is still a beginner. Even the most self-centred of players or spectators understands that much.

Finally, we need to be smart about eliminating umpire abuse from players. We should insist that players who are red, yellow or green carded for umpire abuse are made to umpire a number of games at an acceptable standard before they can play again. If they have to spend weeks practising (and therefore not playing) in order to meet the required standard then so be it. It would indicate they had little idea about umpiring to start with.
 
They should just be grateful if there are three umpires for each game, so that umpiring is not as demanding as it is today...

2009 - A Non-Umpire

_{^{Someone recently asked why this article was so politically correct. In the end, they said, its a simple question. Do we want to train Sydney kids on Sydney turf, or do we want to train non-Sydney kids on Sydney turf? Turf space is so limited that it is black-and-white question. Even if people have all the right motives for encouraging non-locals to use the turf might, the  fact is that they are hurting the sport locally. Like it or not...}}

There are two competing issuesIf it is wrong to encourage Sydney's lack of hockey fields is a major problem in developing the sport locally. Teams can't train enough during the week, and it's a nightmare trying to find fields for games on the weekend. Kings Langley Hockey Club trains on tennis courts. SHA may be scheduling matches in Narellan. Schools don't even think of offering hockey because there would be nowhere to play if people put their hands up.

So imagine you are responsible for all the fields in Sydney (true, managing even one turf is a bit of an issue for SUHC people, but that's another story...), and you get a call from an Association from outside Sydney. The guy says their two top junior teams are used to training on turf most days of the week, but can't get on their own turfs on Saturdays, so they'd like a turf in Sydney for an hour and a half each Saturday. Sunday and Friday nights aren't options because they play their local comp then. He asks if that would be okay.

Of course it's not okay! We need our turfs to develop the sport in Sydney. If we had that under control things might be different, but that's not the case. We can't get enough time for our own Sydney players on Saturdays as it is, let alone giving turf time away to others.

You would also raise lots of other good points with the imaginary caller: For example, we want to develop everyone in Sydney, not just the elite; OR with all due respect, we think the right thing is to give all our players at least one game on the weekend before we start giving their elite players extra games;  OR we know they have lots of skilled juniors because they have been able to put in the hours on turf, so we'd like to use whatever turf time we have to get our own juniors up to their standard;  OR we realise their top players are good and that they'd all get into teams here if they lived here, but they don't live here, and first and foremost we ought to use local facilities to develop local players;  OR yes, we realise their elite guys are as good if not better than many of ours, but that doesn't mean we take have to develop their top players at the expense of our players generally.

The imaginary Association takes that on board and says that rather than sending their two top teams, they'll send three teams down/up/in, and we are welcome to put our top juniors in. That way our elite players also get an extra game and another development opportunity. It would only mean maybe three hours of turf time on Saturday...  Wouldn't that be okay?

Of course not. See above.

The imaginary Association acknowledges that disadvantaging Sydney's juniors for their own juniors could be a real issue. The solution they see is to involve the best juniors (and maybe seniors) from a number of other Associations so its not just them. They could all come to Sydney on Saturdays. It may mean they'll need five or six hours of turf time. It would be great for the development of all the players coming down/up/in, and some elite local players would also get a benefit from the run. Surely that's okay??

Of course not. See above. Curiously, though, a recent SHA release stressed that SHA was very concerned to safeguard the interests of players from outside Sydney...

What's the point of this role-playing? From 2011 Sydney will (we hope) have a new competition structure, but we will still have the same turf shortage. There will be questions about whether clubs from outside Sydney should be included in the elite Sydney competition. (Arguably not: it's a Sydney comp, not a weekly State Championship).  It may even be proposed that their junior clubs play in Sydney, although that would make travel for local juniors a serious issue.

Club involvement is only a symptom of the problem, though. The real issue is more fundamental. Sydney does not have enough turf time for its own needs. Allowing (or even encouraging) seniors and juniors from outside Sydney to double-up and use our turfs on weekends would mean local players are losing an already limited set of opportunities. Development is a great goal, but we need to be pro-active in developing our own players before we develop other players. Given these thrats, its no wonder that  junior hockey in Sydney is struggling!

2009 - A Sydney Junior club official

Sport is better without lawyers. We have umpires to apply the rules of the game. We have lost the plot if we need to bring lawyers into the games to apply the laws of the land. The plot's also lost if technicalities are more important than the spirit of fairness and sportsmanship.

Boards are better without lawyers. It is cheaper to hire specific legal skills by the hour, rather than to engage someone for a year or more. Boards should also avoid conflicts, and there is a real conflict if one board member is advising all board members on legal issues, including themselves.

Legal skills are important in management, though. Many groups manage other people's money or other people's interests, and those other people are protected by governance arrangements. Governance arrangements are second nature to a (good) lawyer.  Lawyers can bring other skills as well.

It was therefore interesting to see in March that HNSW was seeking a director specifically with legal skills.  The person was not being sought to provide legal advice to the board, so it implied that HNSW would be focusing more on governance. That seemed sensible given the impact that HNSW's decisions can have on other people (and occasionally their money) in selections and pathways. Good governance does not guarantee good outcomes, but it certainly guarantees the integrity of the process.

In July HNSW issued a Board Update to announce Alexandra Rose's appointment as a director. She is a lawyer with an impressive CV, and should be a valuable addition to HNSW.

It may be a coincidence, but HNSW's Board Update was issued just six days after Barack Obama spoke on a global stage about the importance of governance. In Ghana's parliament Obama declared:

"...history offers a clear verdict: governments that respect the will of their own people are more prosperous, more stable, and more successful than governments that do not.

This is about more than holding elections - it's also about what happens between them. Repression takes many forms, and too many nations are plagued by problems that condemn their people to poverty... No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy, that is tyranny, and now is the time for it to end.

In the 21st century, capable, reliable and transparent institutions are the key to success - strong parliaments and honest police forces; independent judges and journalists; a vibrant private sector and civil society. Those are the things that give life to democracy, because that is what matters in peoples' lives."

The next HNSW Board Update came out on 26 August. It concerned HNSW's decision to move the U13 Boys to Half State Championships. This was a contentious decision, but let's consider the process and not the decision itself. One assumes an institution like HNSW would manage the process in a way that far exceeded the governance benchmarks set by Obama for emerging democracies. 

The August Update starts by saying that the U13 Boys Half State Championship question was discussed at the February Members Forum. That's correct, but a more transparent release might mention that the Forum discussed and opposed moving the U13 to Half State Championships. It also rejected the proposal that State Championships all be within 2-3 hours of Sydney.

Submissions were sought by the Game Management Committee (GMC) prior to the Forum. It's impossible to know if any submissions were made, or what they said, as there is no record of a GMC meeting since February, and the GMC February minutes don't mention the topic. The HNSW minutes are also silent on this topic in February and March.

Six months of official silence later, however, HNSW suddenly sought "final feedback" from Associations on the Boys U13 State Championships. The request came out on a Friday afternoon with responses due by the following Thursday (the 13th).

Asking for "final feedback" raises many questions. Had HNSW formally sought "initial feedback" on the topic? Was "initial feedback" limited to the submissions to HNSW sought by the GMC ahead of the February Members' Forum? Are GMC and HNSW interchangeable for these purposes? Were discussions at the Forum counted as "submissions"? Was lobbying and oral feedback after the Members' Forum relevant? And what would be done with the `final" feedback that HNSW was now seeking?

And, with all the goodwill in the world, what aspect of governance makes it reasonable for HNSW suddenly to allow only four business days to volunteer groups to prepare final responses on a hotly debated topic?

The August HNSW Board Update goes on to say that 12 submissions were received by the due date, that they were considered by the GMC on the 16th and that they were "evenly balanced". The singular focus on "submissions received by the due date" rings alarm bells. Was feedback that came on the 14th or 15th ignored on this technicality, even though it could easily have been considered? And what does "evenly balanced" mean? Were six Associations in favour and six against, having made just one comment or submission each?  Did Associations which sent a combined or common submission get counted as one?  Did the 12 submissions include comments or feedback from the Members Forum in February? Would excluded submissions have moved the balance?  Or were there six positive reasons and six negative arguments raised, which were measured by number and not by strength? Was feedback sought on the success or otherwise of the Girls Under 13 Half State Championships, which must be a comaparable experiment now into its fourth year (or longer)?

Although the feedback was sought by HNSW it was apparently for the GMC, because the GMC is said to have considered it on the 16th (minutes not available) and made a decision. HNSW is implementing that decision. Again there seem to be more governance questions: as Obama said, capable, reliable and transparent institutions are the things that matter.  Is it appropriate to make a contested decision like this with only three days to consider responses? Had GMC previously considered the issue anyway and reached a conclusion that remained unchanged? Although the GMC has no minutes since February, one assumes HNSW had some basis for wanting comments on such short notice. Did HNSW consider information other than the 12 "evenly balanced" submissions and the GMC decision in making its decision, or did it rely entirely on the GMC to ensure the HNSW community was involved?  Did HNSW consider the Members Forum output?  And did HNSW debate the decision or simply accept whatever GMC recommended?

The Board Update's final emotive appeal for support is unfortunate. Solid, objective reasons should be given to support a proposal that half HNSW's interested members apparently oppose. It is not objective to imply that a lack of support for the Half State concept is a lack of support for the players and teams.

So, Alexandra, over to you. Barack Obama expects transparency, reliability and capability from institutions in emerging democracies. What would he expect of HNSW?

2009 - An ex- lawyer

More than half on NSW's population lives in Sydney so common sense says that more than half of the State's future greats should come from Sydney. They don't and won't. Regional and country players are a clear majority in recent State junior teams or squads. Why?

It isn't biased selections (even if City v Country is an oddity). The problem is the small number of players being developed in Sydney.

Hockey development in Sydney is a dog's breakfast.

SHA has a monopoly on men's hockey throughout Sydney, and notionally requires the top clubs to have some juniors. There are dozens of associations running smaller women's competitions all around the place, but they have no requirements for juniors. Sydney Junior Hockey runs a large city-wide mixed juniors competition. Then there are school-based competitions (mainly girls) that have no links to senior development, and some local junior competitions (usually girls only) that may or may not be linked to some form of pathway. 

No-one is responsible for developing hockey in Sydney. No-one looks at a bigger picture and tries to help the sport get the media attention and public support it deserves in Australia's biggest single market.  Everyone is focussed on protecting their own little patch.

HNSW has to run the whole State. There must be a limit to the amount of time it can spend trying to fix Sydney. True, HNSW has development pathways that are open to players from Sydney, even if the pathways look like technical drawings for a nuclear plant. These pathways are a conveyor belt for intending Olympians, though, and have nothing to do with developing broader participation in the sport.

SHA recently proposed that it should take control of junior hockey from SJHA. It thinks it can force a better level of player development. The idea is being discussed by SHA next month.

We would welcome your views on whether you think this is the best way to start to solve this problem.

Many people think it's a terrible idea. SJHA has been doing a relatively good job in developing juniors, while SHA has done nothing (or less than nothing). Why would you transfer responsibility to SHA with that background?  Monopolies often want to get bigger, but that does not mean they get better, or that they provide better outcomes. At the most positive, all that is happening is that we are shuffling the deckchairs while the Titanic is sinking.

SHA's recent efforts in assuming management of a junior girls comp would indicate its not even as good as just shuffling the deckchairs. There will be all sorts of reasons for the competition immediately crumbling, but the essence seems to have been  that SHA could not provide the time and effort needed to develop something where people weren't obliged to participate.

Other concerns about SHA being responsible for junior development include:

* SHA's major power is the threat of removing teams from Premier League. Threats are not the way to develop anything positive, let alone junior players;
* SHA's threats are only relevant to clubs that want to be in Premier League and which do not meet the latest SHA requirement. This threat is irrelevant to clubs that do not want to be in Premier League or which can slack off because they have met the SHA's  requirements;
* SHA is a monopolist. It has never had to pursue growth or development. It has left junior development to clubs - who are the same people who are running SJHA. What changes, other than that the people closer to the process having less control?
* Development is about attracting boys and girls to hockey. SHA is a bastion of male self-interest with no record of assisting girls. Its strategic plan is arguably anti-girl, but if girls choose not to play in SHA/SJHA competitions they will lose half their players. That means more than half the teams would fold as they wouldn't have minimum numbers; and finally
* Junior sport relies on volounteers, and many parents help because they enjoy adding real value to their local community. These people will be much less relevant if junior hockey is run by a group focused mainly on men's hockey, and there is a real risk that there will be fewer interested volounteers so the sport will go backwards.

So what's the answer? Perhaps SJHA should continue to run junior development until HNSW (or someone else) can develop a blueprint for making real changes in Sydney, not just a shuffle of the deckchairs. Perhaps all hockey associations should be required to treat junior development as a responsibility, not an optional extra? Perhaps the people who seem to do most to encourage new players (the schools) should be involved in these discussions? We don't know the best answer. But its time people started to think about it.

2008 - A Parent