Fri 22 Aug, 2008
|
|
|
|
MWC: Malaysia will face tougher fight for spot in hockey's World Cup  x43
 |
| International |
March 3, 2005 
The Star Online
> Page Views 5839
BY S. RAMAGURU
KUALA LUMPUR: The national hockey team have a much tougher task to qualify for the World Cup Finals now that the number of teams to make the grade has been reduced to five from a 12-team tournament in China next year.
Previously, six teams qualified from the qualifiers.
The International Hockey Federation (FIH) have given another automatic berth to Europe for the 2006 Finals. The other automatic qualifiers are hosts and defending champions Germany and the five continental winners.
Asian and Pan-American have completed their championship and the winners are India and Argentina. Oceania, Europe and Africa have yet to stage their championship.
The FIH decided to give Europe two automatic places because three of the teams finished among the top five in the Athens Olympics last year.
The FIH events manager, Dennis Meredith, said in a telephone interview from Lausanne yesterday: “The new criteria of selection of qualifiers is based on the teams' performances in the Olympics and continental rankings. Therefore, Europe will get two automatic places.”
National coach Wallace Tan said that all 12 teams in qualifying tournament in Guangzhou had an even chance to make the Finals, making it a very stiff competition.
“I don't think any team can be considered favourites to qualify. The top teams are not there. Germany are automatic qualifiers and I think Spain and Holland will secure their berths from the European Cup,” he said.
“With teams having even chances to qualify, the pressure will be greater and matches will be tough.”
Asia will have five teams in the qualifiers while Europe will have four. The other teams will come from Pan-America, Africa and Oceania.
The Asian teams in the qualifiers are hosts China, Pakistan, South Korea, Japan and Malaysia. Canada will represent Pan America.
Wallace expects New Zealand, South Africa, Egypt, Belgium, England, France and Poland to complete the cast in the qualifiers.
“We now have to take a serious look at these teams and monitor their progress,” he said.
“When you play against a top team you have a pretty good idea on what you are up against. Against these teams (those in the qualifiers), the situation is different.
“They can be good one day and lose to a weaker team the next day. It is the same with us. Our preparations have to be more complete.
“The players must realise that it will not be easy at all. We cannot take any team for granted and every match is crucial.”
The dates for the qualifiers have not been finalised. The tournament was initially set for March but this clashes with the 2006 Melbourne Commonwealth Games, scheduled for March 15-26.
“We would prefer it to be in late April and May. A number of the Commonwealth teams will be playing in the qualifiers and we have to avoid a clash of dates (with the Melbourne Games). We will finalise the dates soon,” said Meredith.
The 2006 Finals will be played in Monchengladbach from Sept 6-17.
Your opinion counts.
Rate this article or enter your comments below.
|
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
|
Larry C
03-03-2005 7:57 pm
|
Report this post
|
World Cup Qualifier
Hopefully one of South Africa or Egypt will qualify directly from the African qualifying event so both teams will not participate in the World Cup qualifying tournament.
Also, the assumption being made is that Australia will win the Oceania qualifier. Most likely, but not without a determined fight from New Zealand who have performed very well at World Cup 2002 and Olympics 2004.
That would make the teams in the qualifier as follows (assuming results go to form suggested in the article):
China, Pakistan, South Korea, Japan and Malaysia (Asia) - already determined
Canada (Pan America) - already determined
Egypt or South Africa (Africa) - to be decided
New Zealand (Oceania) - to be decided
Belgium, England, France and Poland (Europe) - to be decided
|
|
Stick
03-03-2005 8:00 pm
|
Report this post
|
Australia
There's no mention of Australia in this article. I would have thought as Olympic Champions, they too, would have automatic qualification.
|
|
ismadii
03-03-2005 9:55 pm
|
Report this post
|
oceania
i think it's unfair that oceania gets an automatic spot.who else plays hockey besides Australia and New Zealand???? they should have a playoff like FIFA have now with the 2nd ranked team in Asia or Europe to qualify
|
|
ismadi
03-03-2005 9:58 pm
|
Report this post
|
Europe gets 2nd berth
so convenient of FIH to give another automatic spot to Europe. another typical bias in favor of the Europeans along with the no-offside rule. i think spectators would rather see Asian flair rather than boring tactical Europeans.
|
|
hockey no hoper
03-03-2005 11:34 pm
|
Report this post
|
great basis of decision
There does not seem to be any consistency in this whole process. Yes its true that europe has three out of the top four places at the athens olympics.
Yet it appears that the olympic champions (australia) are ignored for automatic qualification, even though the athens results have been the basis for awarding an extra place to europe. I think there needs to be a please explain type of press release to clarify the situation as to why Australia has not been given automatic qualification.
This is not the only inconsistency on the part of the FIH. When all sports are looking to increase their exposure, the FIH has reduced the number of teams for both the world cup and the qualifiers. Take rugby as an example - USA would not be around if they didnt increase the number of teams in the world cup from 16 to 20. Now they host a sevens tournament and player numbers are increasing. By making a minor sport elitist, you will never increase the global exposure of the game.
I also think that the continental qualifiers should be played within a certain time of the qualifying event. India won the asia cup in 2003 - three years before the World Cup and prior to the athens Olympics. As you all know a lot can change in three years - in india's case it probably amounts to six coaches and a whole heap of players.
Lastly, is there a point to the world rankings? It appears that these have no influence on any qualification for tournaments. As many countries do not participate in global events (WC, Olys, CT, CC and qualifiers), there seems to much abitrariness in the rankings. The point I am trying to make is that while China are hosting the qualifier they are not in the top 19 teams in the rankings - the 19 being the 7 automatic qualifiers, plus the next 12 who will be at the WCQ tournament. I think that they are ranked 20? someone has taken rankings off the FIH website.
However, again there is inconsistency. If you are trying to find the best team, then why allocate a tournament to a team not ranked in the best nations in the world - this was the same reason for declining Greece' participation in athens.
Hopefully some of you reply.
|
|
interested aussie
03-04-2005 12:06 am
|
Report this post
|
it should be inclusive not exclusive
hockey shouldhave 16 teams in their world cup and aim to provide more opportunity for emerging nations to compete...it is a backward step going from 16 teams to 12! it reflects the complexion of FIH which is exclusive and eurocentric. All countries aim for this tournament and while the olympics can only have 12 teams, for other reasons, hockey's own event should have 4 pools of 4 etc. Bad decision FIH but why are we surprised with dennis meredith involved. even if he disagreed he wouldn't rock the boat!
|
|
defcon
03-04-2005 3:01 am
|
Report this post
|
|
Well thats what the qualifiers are all about. The cream of the corp.
|
|
DIL
03-04-2005 3:01 am
|
Report this post
|
YEP
i think Aus should have automatic berth for being olympic champions that will leave NZ to face fiji and will have more chances to qualify for WC....
india is already thru , why ? what did they win??????? i just wana know........
|
|
Strength v weakness
03-04-2005 8:31 am
|
Report this post
|
|
This decision seams strange. They give more berths for strength well then take them away for weakness. The African and Amercias teams both performed poorly at the olympics (all in the bottom 4 I think!). Also why is it unfair that oceania gets an automatic berth both NZ and Aus were in the top 6 at olympics and top 9 at last World Cup, why play Fiji and beat them 20-0 what is the point?
|
|
Rando
03-04-2005 11:11 am
|
Report this post
|
16 Teams
Let me add my voice to those calling for sixteen teams....I love the world cup soccer format, hockey should copy it and improve upon it.....four groups of four...top two from each group move on to two winner bracket groups of four each, bottom two move into loser's brackets of four each. Eight games for every team. I'd buy a ticket to that tournament!
|
|
Ash
03-04-2005 1:08 pm
|
Report this post
|
Format
The number of teams shud be increased to 18 to give chances to more teams. With 3 groups for each team. The top 2 from each group and next 2 best teams play in the quarter finals.
|
|
Applebee's Army
03-04-2005 2:08 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
I hope this means the Americas get two slots in the Women's World Cup qualifying, seeing as Argentina is the current World Cup champion!
|
|
Drexler
03-04-2005 3:19 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
Admittedly Australia and New Zealand have an easier path to automatic qualification, its a 50/50 chance at the oceania qualifying. However its crazy to take it away. If Aus and NZ were at the olympic qualifiers, both those teams would be likely to qualify, which would mean 1 less spot for the precious asians to gain. You want all teams to havea chance but want the increase the number of top teams at the qualifiers... doesnt make sense to me. Let aus and nz fight for a automatic berth, keeps 1 spot free at the qualifiers for another team!
|
|
yen
03-04-2005 9:31 pm
|
Report this post
|
why europe
lets be fair , if europe can get two automatic place why not asia
lets make it like these automatic qualifications
asia 2
europe 2
aust/nz 1
africa 1
america 1
title holder 1
total 8 .
--------------
4 to qualify
-------------
or like these
asia 1
europe 1
aust/nz 1
america /africa 1
no title holder 0
------------------
4
--------------
8 to quqlify
lets be fair
any support for me
|
|
malay
03-04-2005 9:35 pm
|
Report this post
|
we will get in
we will be ther along with pak , japan, and sk.
so five asian teams in wc 2006 . and we asian teams will get 5 top berths in wc 06. so we get more spots . in 2010 . are u with me steve
|
|
16 TEAMS FORMAT
03-05-2005 12:17 am
|
Report this post
|
?
the only reason FIH doesnt go for 16 teams format is number of days ,the tournament will be held which they allow 10 days? also how many pitches are available ? unlike soccer where the event goes on for well over 2 wks?
|
|
hockey no hoper
03-05-2005 7:30 pm
|
Report this post
|
16 teams format
the solution is easy - make the duration longer. Allows greater exposure and media coverage - benefits everywhere.
Costs - if it is a 4 pools of 4 format, total amount of games is 7 (3 pool matches, 1/16, 1/8, semis and final). This is the same number of games as the twelve team format. therefore increased days may not be a factor. However the duration should be increased for the factors in the first paragraph.
|
|
agree
03-06-2005 2:39 am
|
Report this post
|
hockey hoper
yes why not in 2002 we had 16 teams in two groups , which was not very good.again 4 teams in one group is not a very good format. so lets make 24 teams - two tier system like in wc table tennis
|
|
Lizzie
03-06-2005 5:57 am
|
Report this post
|
Stop talking, get reading
Why don't all of you - especially Yen - who have been posting their wild speculations actually make the effort of going to the FIH website and READING up on the qualification procedure?? Just because this article is biased doesn't mean it is factual and correct in everything it says!
There never was any allocation of a second place to Europe as such, but the qualification format has been changed and because of the final rankings in Athens, it happens to be Europe that profit from this. Had Asia placed higher up in the rankings, the berth would have gone to them.
As fpr hockey no hoper's comment about China and Greece, there is a logic in this. China has been making an effort and showing improvement, which Greece never did. They started making half-hearted efforts less than three years before their OG by dishing out passports to people from around the world, another thing China does not do. Also, the fact that China is preparing a lot better and earlier is evidenced by the fact that they actually bothered to bid to host the WC Qualifier - they bid for this event approx. 5 years before the Beijing Games. 5 years before the Athens Games, Greece neither had national teams nor a functioning federation. It's all about the sincerity of the effort.
|
|
hockey no hoper
03-06-2005 8:01 am
|
Report this post
|
Re: Lizzie
Good point re China and Greece. Making an effort - is that part of the world ranking criteria?
To me what you are saying is that world rankings dont matter - its the effort that counts. The part about world rankings - that is exactly the point i was trying to make.
To the others who have commented on the number of teams from each continent gaining automatic entry - there are not too many continents around where 100% of the continental participants made it to athens and made the top 6.
|
|
Ajit
03-06-2005 9:52 am
|
Report this post
|
FIH
Don't know what to say, FIH is now a like a management department, they seems forgotten to promote hockey. For the past many years, Asia only got India, Pakistan, Korea, Japan. What happen Indonesia, Thailand, Brunei, Singapore, Hong Kong, Chinese Taipei, Sri Lanka, Burma.... is there any plan for FIH.
FIH knows how to manage people in their jobs but forgotten what their mission or vision were.............
|
|
In-U2-I-Trust
03-06-2005 1:43 pm
|
Report this post
|
Worldcup
I have sometimes written about a world-cup with 24 teams. And most answers were : TO EXPENSIVE. If THIS is the problem , then let us nominate 24 nations, but only ONE player a`nation. Then let is stand a TABLE--HOCKEY--GAME in the middle of a room , and let us play the "TABLE--HOCKEY--WORLDCUP !!!!!!". Then we have only 24 players, we can play the whole tournement at ONE day, and a table--hockey--game should not be so much expensive as a fieldhockey--Arena. But : we played a worldcup with 24 nations, and the WHOLE WORLD will take notize of it.
It`s only poor for our sport, if the FIH says its to Expensive. Look at the other sports : Handball, Baskettball,Vollyball and so on. The all play world--cup with more then 16 teams. And for all these Sports, it has been a big step into the future , to take more nations in their tournament. And no the FIH would tell me : for US , a world--cup with 20 nations is TO expensive !! OH POOR FIH !! SEND ME YOUR ADRESS !!! I WILL SPEND 5 € TO YOU POOR GUYS !!!
|
|
FORMAT
03-06-2005 11:26 pm
|
Report this post
|
16 TEAMS
well its hard to manage (financially) 12 teams format so forget about 16 teams ?????
remember you all FIELDHOCKEY IS AN AMATEUR SPORTS !!!!!!!!!!!!!
so all those above who are saying get more coverage,media, sponsor its just a dream thing!
FIH should take serious measures to promote hockey otherwise like England who are stepping back from participation in big tournaments is abvious and its one example ! so gradually one by one will be backing up and this sports will be facing a big decline!
|
|
ruby
03-06-2005 11:59 pm
|
Report this post
|
In-U2-I-Trust
wow u are too good , u post is worth in gold. keep it up.
|
|
yen
03-07-2005 12:03 am
|
Report this post
|
Lizzie
i do like your comments , but rules are made to suit europe. why was no such was made in 70s when india. pak ( japan 3rd place 1972) , malaysia ( 1975 4th place ) existed.
point to ponder , ofcours3 those days we had different format.
|
|
Philosopher
03-07-2005 3:19 am
|
Report this post
|
World Cup - 12 teams
It is a shame that it is apparently considered too expensive to host a World Cup of 16 teams, but it is surely far more detrimental to the sport in the long run to make qualifying for elite events too hard.
The sport is hanging by a thread in places like England, Japan, Malaysia, Ireland, Canada, Belgium, Ukraine, Poland - if these teams start failing to qualify, they lose funding and the sport dies. Is that what the FIH wants?
The FIH can put down pitches in Outer Mongolia and send sticks to Afghanistan but these places are not going to replace England or Malaysia in the world pecking order - unless they can qualify for big competitons, which they won't if they are restricted to 12 teams.
If it is too expensive to host a simple event with only 16 teams, then hockey is doomed anyway!
|
|
Uknow
03-07-2005 10:31 am
|
Report this post
|
|
Is the problem is that there aren't enough turf stadiums of int'l standard to run a 16-nation tournament within a decent period of time?
|
|
NZ Hockey player
03-07-2005 3:41 pm
|
Report this post
|
Another dumb decision out of the FIH. 3 of the top 5 at the olympics were from Europe. Big Deal............2 Of the top six were from Oceania and there were only 2 teams from there competing. Therefore Oceania had a 100% success rate for top six (Champions Trophy) at the Olympics. What was the success rate that europe had? I beleive that there was only 1 team from asia in the top six at the olympics as well.
The biggest problem with the FIH is they are not promoting the sport on a global scale. WE should have 16 or evan 20 teams at the World Cup and not have regional qualifyiers. Host and current Olympic and World Champion should automatically qualify and the rest should play in a qualifying tournament based on world rankings. The Qualifying Tournamant should be 30 teams.
This would encourage more countries in their hockey endeavours.
By the way when was the last time and India or Pakistan won the Olympics? Population of India 1 billion yet cant win anything.................nice
|
|
hockey no hoper
03-07-2005 7:01 pm
|
Report this post
|
re: amatuer sport
There is a comment regarding hockey being an amateur sport above. I would have thought that works in hockeys favour as there will not be much money spent on players which instead can be spent on developing and globalising the game.
In relation to qualifiers - i agree with NZ's comments - why should you use regional qualifiers etc - this does not take into account the standard of the various regions. In addition, the regions werent developed by FIH - they were developed naturally. I guess if the regions are used, then why cant countries decide what region they want to participate in. This will remove the problem of all the asian supporters saying that oceania is an easy ride - go to the oceania qualifiers and win a bronze medal.
U know - how many stadiums do you need? 2? they dont need to be next to each other - look at rugby, cricket, soccer - not all there matches are played in the same stadium, one after the other. It would be great if they were played at different venues - then could have pre-match entertainment and all that so each match would be like a separate event.
too expensive - this means that administrators are too lazy to raise funds. This reason should only be accepted if they can demonstrate that they have explored all possible avenues to raise funds.
|
|
Davo
03-07-2005 7:38 pm
|
Report this post
|
24 Team World Cup
24 teams means a maximum of 12 games a day (assuming all teams play on a given day) and on most days there will be less. With two fields at one venue that means you could get away with at most 6 games on each field and play the entire tournament at the one location. I'm sure there are a number of facilities (even clubs) around the world that could handle this.
As for time, if you were to start the tournament on the Saturday and finish on the Sunday two weeks later you would have 16 days for games to be played. Assuming 4 pools of 6 with the top two from each pool progressing to quarterfinals, top teams that reach the finals would play a total of 8 games in the 16 days (5 round games plus quarter, semi and finals).
Yes, its a lot of games, but teams already do this considering they play lead up games before the Olympics etc in addition to the 7 games during the Tournament proper.
As for cost, all teams to pay their own way. If a team doesn't want to pay, I'm sure that there would be others willing to take their place. If officials really want to be there, they should pay their own way too if funds are scarce.
One drawback is there may be some lopsided games with top teams giving the lower teams some thrashings. However with teams like France who are ranked outside the top 16 beating India recently, I think the opportunity for upsets is high. It will also lift the standard of teams by being given the chance to play the top teams in a real tournament. Hockey should be looking to expand its reach and appeal, not remain elitist.
|
|
COOL
03-08-2005 12:03 am
|
Report this post
|
LIZZIE
STOP READING, GET TALKING!
Hi,
You are an enlightened person and it's obvious well read too! A rare combination in these parts of the (hockey) world.
However, please enlighten us not-so-well-read-wildly-speculating souls; have you read between the lines?
Who asked the FIH to change selection criteria?
Why did Greece not get automatic selection as host country?
Who comprises of the voting body at FIH?
Is FIH unbiased (Unlike this article as you claim)?
Is FIH reasoning sound?
Is FIH sound?
How can the US decide if a venue is suitable for playoffs without valid justification of their wildly speculative claims of ill-percieved threats?
Get off your condescending, sanctimonious, superior behind and smell the roses!
Most of who post theirs views here are not green horns and have either played, officiated or administered the sport at a relatively significant level. More than likely, they have a fair acumen to post intelligent comments.
This also includes Yen.
//
|
|
GEOGRAPHER
03-08-2005 12:19 am
|
Report this post
|
TO PHILOSOPHER
mind that ,afghanistan is not a new commer , in 1956 ,60 olympics they were there....like Kenya who were representing olympics consistently till 1972 ,appeared again in 1984 ,after that due to lack of funds and some politics didnt show up again..........
|
|
WC qualifying criteria
03-08-2005 12:25 am
|
Report this post
|
TO ALL .....
Page 1 of 2
INTERNATIONAL HOCKEY FEDERATION QUALIFICATION CRITERIA
Qualification System for Men’s and Women’s World Cups
Adopted by Executive Board – July 2002
Format
The World Cups will consist of one Men’s tournament with 12 countries and of one Women’s
tournament with 12 countries. The competition will be played as a 2 pool (6 teams) format.
Continental Representation
Each continent will be represented in each of the respective Men’s and Women’s World Cup
tournaments by at least one of its countries.
Automatic Qualification
The following countries will qualify automatically for each of the respective Men’s and Women’s World
Cup tournaments:
• The host country
• The winner of the respective Africa Cups
• The winner of the respective European Hockey Championships (A Division)
• The winner of the respective Asia Cups
• The winner of the respective Oceania Cups
• The winner of the respective Pan America Cups
• 1 or 2 teams (depending upon whether the host is a Continental Federation Champion) from
the (Continental) ranking of the most recent Olympic Games.
(See Definition of “ranking” below).
Total qualified teams – 7 men’s teams and 7 women’s teams
World Cup Qualification Tournament
To make a total of 12 teams participating in the respective Men’s and Women’s World Cups, as well
as to determine the reserve teams for these two tournaments, the top five (5) teams in the respective
Men’s and Women’s World Cup Qualifying Tournaments will be qualified.
The countries to take part in the respective Men’s and Women’s qualifying competitions will comprise:
• The host country
• The other 11 teams qualified from the respective Continental Federation Cup tournaments
based upon ranking from the (Continental) ranking of the most recent Olympic Games.
Total qualified teams – 5 men’s teams and 5 women’s teams
Definition of ‘Ranking’
‘Ranking‘ means - the method of ranking between Continental Federations which is to be based upon
the results of the previous Olympic Games. By this method a Continental Federation attains ranking
for its member countries (National Associations). Places obtained for this ranking are filled by nations
based upon the results of the respective Continental Federation Cups. In other words a team’s result
in the previous Olympic Games secures a place for a team from the same Continent but that place is
decided by results in the Continental Cup that precedes the World Cup.
|
|
Lizzie
03-08-2005 5:11 am
|
Report this post
|
Re: hockey no hoper
Making an effort is not part of the World Ranking, you know that as well as I do. But the Olympic Games are special in many ways, the most important in this issue being that the host country will often not be one of the "big" nockey nations. So if participation ware to be awarded solely based on world ranking, the host nation wouldn't participate about 2 out of 3 times, and that is not in the best interest of the sport in my opinion, and not in the best interest of securing hockey's status as an Olympic sport.
The world rankings do matter, and they should be used to determine who gets to participate in the international top events, but special provisions need to be made for Olympic hosts. Since their ranking alone will most likely not get them into the tournament, other criteria need to be examined, and among those, yes, there should be room for how much of an effort the nation has made, how much it has improved, how far it has come.
But even if you choose to reject my views on that the effort should count, you will still find that China is currently ranked 20th, while Greece is ranked 49th. And that is the men only, because the Chinese women don't need automatic qualification whereas the Greek federation sued for a berth for their men's team only, because even they thought their women weren't fit to participate. Don't you agree that it is flawed logic when one sues for a berth for the host claiming that it must be the host's automatic right to participate, but that only goes for one of the host's two teams?
|
|
Lizzie
03-08-2005 5:11 am
|
Report this post
|
Re: Yen
No point to ponder. Different times, different rules, different people back then. I don't see any use in discussing NOW why the rules were different in the 70es. Reading your statement, it literally says that no new rules or regulations should be allowed and no efforts can be made to improve the system because things were different in the past and no changes were introduced then. I don't think the fact that the flaws of the system weren't recognized earlier and no attempts at improvement were made 30 years ago is a valid reason to forever leave things as they are - and it is definitely no prove that there is a Europe bias in the criteria change.
The new criteria are there now, and Asia may use them to their advantage as everyone else. If Asian teams improve, and more Asian teams improve, more teams will get to participate and more teams will qualify automatically.
Personally, I very much agree with the new qualification criteria because they shorten the turn-around time by many years, by which I mean the time it takes individual countries to make their way into the top-level events as well as the time it takes continents to gain a larger number of berths in said events. When the new system has settled in, the nations participating in the world level events will much more acurately reflect the actual situation in international hockey, with nations gaining entry based upon recent results rather than those from a decade ago and continents winning and losing berths more quickly as they improve or slacken.
There will be less room for resting on laurels. That is a good opportunity for nations that are on their way up but not quite there yet. There is also more pressure on those nations that are at the top as their berths can slip away faster now. The spots are up for grabs, and those who think they deserve them should go out get them rather than whine about how difficult everything is.
Returning to the article above, the new criteria only mean that Spain or the Netherlands will not be playing for a berth in Guanghzou but get an automatic one. I think it is pretty save to say that they would surely have gotten themselves a ticket anyway, and that Malaysia wouldn't have beaten them, so what is the point of the article really? Yes, there are 5 berths for 12 nations now instead of 6 for 12, but in the new twelve, one of the top 4 nations in the world will be replaced with one ranked near twenty. As I see it, Malaysia's chances are about as good as they were.
|
|
Lizzie
03-08-2005 5:35 am
|
Report this post
|
Format
And a last one on why it is 12 nations, not more: I take it that most of you have been to few international tournaments, let alone worked at or organized any. Organizing a twelve team tournament is a hell of a lot of work, and the finances are always a problem. Just "getting" more sponsors, more media coverage, more (paying) spectators is extremely difficult, bordering on impossible. If you think it is that easy, it is just a question of attempting it, then go out and host an international tournament and we'll talk about it afterwards.
Davo - 12 games a day is no problem to play, but there would be about the same total number of spectators, so most games would be played in empty stadiums. Teams do pay their own way and drop out when they can't afford it, but would it be in the interest of the sport to have more and more nations drop out because everyone gets to go to more and more events and needs to choose and you end up having participants that are in no way fit to play on that level and end up losing 20-0 or 25-0?
And my favorite is that officials should pay their way. There's a good one. Most officials have regular, regularly paid jobs like you and me, and how do you think they'll pay for two weeks halfway around the world that are not even a holiday? I couldn't and I wouldn't, simple as that. But going with your idea, let's have the officials who "really want to be there" instead of the most experienced and dedicated ones. Rather than some of the best available umpires, we'll have the ones who earn the most money at the World Cup and Olympics and Qualifiers. I am sure this will help in improving the quality of umpiring.
Another question to consider is that there will always be nations "on the edge", whether you have 12 participants or 16 or 24. There would be nations benefitting from expanding the World Cup to 16 nations, but then one could still argue it would be only fair to expand to 20, 24, 32 to give more nations an opportunity.
|
|
THE DECIDER
03-08-2005 8:01 am
|
Report this post
|
THE WORLD CUP (wats dat supposed to mean)
Listen , How about a twenty team world cup. There should be 4 groups of 5 teams each and the top two can qaulify for the q-finals from each group. on the other hand u can hav the top team from every group and the 2nd from evry group can play the 3rd place of the other group to determine the other 4 quarter finals. It will also be nice to see matches played at various venues as the same public (spectators) cannot be expected to turn up day after day thus causing EMPTY STANDS . How? do u then propose to get the sponserships . The way the qauifying structure as far as Automatic qaulification is based is ok as long as we get to see a world cup of the following Picture:
6 teams from asia
2 from oceana
6 from europe
3 from africa
2 from america
and one other either from europe/america.or this can be the hosts position.
If a team wins a world cup or olympic games it should get automatic entry but the number of teams from that continent shouldnt increase. eg holland win world cup. germany win olympics. and tournament hosted by belgium . leaves europe with 4 more places. (Hosts are not included in their regional maximum number)
Atleast then we will get to see teams in action like Ireland , France , Malaysia , Hong Kong , or even Singapore , Canada , Argentina , South Africa , Nigeria , Egypt , Zimbabwe , New Zealnd .
Besides we will have the usual heavyweights too .
Wouldnt it be great for hockey if someone like Hong Kong or Thailand can shock everyone by giving them an oppurtunity to play Australia , Germany , Spain , Holland , etc.
Everyone including FIH think about it .
and if u ever want any more help just ask for my email address
We also have to promote the game in the following way . before the tpurnament have promotional matches between the teams in their countries to encourage the cup eg.
Rank 1 qualifier vs the ranked 11
rank 2 vs 12th
rank 3 vs 13th
itll be like southafrica vs belgium and holland vs malaysia and france vs Korea (hopefully) doeasnt that sound good
to fin out more ask for my mail ID.
|
|
COOL
03-08-2005 9:53 am
|
Report this post
|
FLAWED REASONING
Lizzie,
Your long-winded missive above (Re: Yen), has a minor problem. It is sans logic! By your reasoning the best 12 teams should be playing. Then why have qualifying matches and representation from every continent. Just let the top 12 teams (as ranked by the flawless FIH ranking system) play the WC. This will save time, effort and above all the all-to-scarce moolah. This should solve all FIH problems.
But, then can we call it the WC. Maybe, we can if we have naive visions such as the US has and calls everything that they play locally to be the World series!! Nothing else exists for them.
If FIH wants to popularize the game, then your reasoning is an anamoly of sorts. Maybe you should join the FIH to further the game.
If the FIH cannot field a larger playing pool at the WC, then they should let professionals handle the games. The football (read soccer) WC format should be adopted and many so called "fringe" teams should also be allowed to play at the WC.
No sport is exclusively for the priviledged few, fools make it so.
//
|
|
In-U2-I-Trust
03-08-2005 2:20 pm
|
Report this post
|
at lizzie
at lizzie
Sure...it`s not fine to see agame Pakistan--Uganda 25--0 . But : HOW SHOULD THE SMALL NATIONS LERARN . From one of these games Uganda learns more then from 25 games Uganda--Marokko. I remember the Soccer--World-cup in the 70´ties : In 1974 there was a worldcup game : Brazil against Zaire (AFRICA) . Zaire has won the Africa--qualifikation. The result was 9-0 (in words : NINE -- NULL !!!!!!!). Then the world-cup would bigger. First 24 teams now 32 teams. The teams from afrika would more and more. And what happend ???? Look : In the 90´ties Kamerun ( A TEAM FROM AFRIKA) has been Olympia--gold--medallist !!!! Senegal ( A TEAM FROM AFRIKA) rampelt FRANCE out of the tournament in 2002. How could this come ?????? Do you think it happend because Senegal played against Kamerun 10 times more in a year ???? Now it happend because the 3rd--class--nations get their places in the world--cups to learn . AND THEY LEARNED FAST !!!!!! Perhaps the big hockey nations are afrait ???? Afrait that in hockey the same will go one ??? Afrait that in 2012 perhaps NIGERIA or MEXICO will be Olympia--gold--medallist ....and not PAKISTAN or GERMANY ??????? ( By the way : I`m a GERMAN boy ! )
|
|
In--U2--I--Trust
03-08-2005 2:46 pm
|
Report this post
|
The next world--cup is in my home--country !! In Germany. I think..it could be an very easy thing to play a 24 teams--WC. We have 4 pools at 6 teams. that feels like 4 tournaments in 4 big citys in Germany with 6 teams in each pool. OHHHHHHHHHHHH. I see it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It`s a big problem to find 4 big cities in Germany !!!!! There are many big cities in Germany : München , Berlin , Köln , Hamburg , Stuttgart , Hannover , Leipzig and so on . OH SORRY !!! Each of this city is to small to play and promote a 6--team--tounament :-))))). And if we surprise to find 4 big citites who we can play the 4 6--teams--pools ???
Oh no....THAN : The top 4 from each group will qualify for the 1/8--final ko--play--off. Oh..what a shame . There is no city to host this grandios 8 games .
The same with quater--, half---and worldcupfinal. No one of all this small little cities can host this. YEAAHHH... I understand ....It`s to expensive to host this games.
We german people build 12 new stadiums , that costs 1.000.000.000 Dollar for the soccer--world--cup in 2006. But we have no little millions to host a hockey--world--cup.
poor Germany .
But also poor other countries.
Or should I say : POOR FIH ??????
|
|
Davo
03-08-2005 8:46 pm
|
Report this post
|
Lizzie
Let me clarify. When I talk about officials I don't mean the umpires or TD's but the people from FIH and the National Associations who turn up and are paid for by someone else. There are a lot of these people who add absolutely nothing to the tournament but add a substantial amount to the cost.
Second, I think any team that qualified for the world cup would do whatever it takes to get to the tournament. At least give them the opportunity. There is already a major tournament held every four years with 22 of the top teams in the world participating. It's called the Olympic Games. Volunteers form the majority of workers at the Olympics and World Cup. The incremental cost of extra teams is small in terms of total cost and in strong hockey centres there are plenty of willing volunteers.
While there may be empty stadiums and thrashings at times more teams would INCREASE the total number of spectators along with gate revenues and sponsorship potential. Look at the amount of Dutch, Indian, Paki and Aussie fans that travel to support their teams. While not in the same numbers, smaller nations would also have travelling fans. Have the top games on the number 1 field with matches with less interest on the other. The same thing happened in Athens.
As far as thrashings go, would Germany put ten goals past Italy? (currently ranked 24) Maybe, but New Zealand also put 8 past Pakistan in the last Commonwealth games and no-one argues the Pakis shouldn't play at in the World Cup. Australia put 6 past Spain in the Olympic Semi. The Rugby World Cup saw huge scores in lots of games, but they will continue to invite minnows to expand the reach of a game that has less players and interest around the world than hockey currently does. In hockey you would only expect 1 maybe 2 blowouts in every pool and over time margins would become smaller as teams improve. I will admit the depth in the women is not as good as the mens currently, but yes we should be looking to expand from 16 to 20 and then 24 and 32. Thats how you create interest (and sponsorship) from all around the globe, not just a narrow band of countries.
The benefits of committing to an enlarged world cup far outweigh the additional costs of hosting one and it can be done.
|
|
hockey no hoper
03-08-2005 11:50 pm
|
Report this post
|
Re: Davo
I like your idea, but wont changes effect the hockey world order? ie with more teams all getting opportunities to get better, it may result in ger, ned, esp and others not being able to keep their place - wouldnt that be a sad day for hockey.
Imagine if USA, Japan, and others with big corporates got behind hockey as their teams were consistently at the world cup - it would be great.
|
|
Philosopher
03-21-2005 5:30 am
|
Report this post
|
Teams
Can anyone explain the rationale behind having a 16-team junior World Cup and only a 12-team senior one?
|
|
|
|
 |
HOME | FEATURES | CLUBHOUSE | CAMPS | LINKS | ABOUT US | STORE | ADVERTISE
Use of this site is subject to certain Terms & Conditions.
|
|
|
