Tue 13 May, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
Feature: Why The Decision Trimming World Cup To 12 Teams Is Wrong  x62
 |
| Poland qualify for the World Cup - Photo: Vino John |
January 3, 2002 
Jakub R Kumoch
> Page Views 13535
When I learnt the FIH again changed its mind and decided the 2006 World Cups will be twelve-team tournaments, I thought it was just a poor joke. Why limit the number of teams competing in the most important tournament when nobody else is doing that? Why change the World Cup into a bigger Champions Trophy? Why deny at least several good teams and several dozens good players their chance to join the biggest event? I couldn't even understand the reason, the hockey rulers didn't want to wait for 2002 Malaysian and Australian final tournaments? There was no debate - just a decision.
"Although we tried to broaden access in the current World Cup cycle, the twelve team format has been proved to provide a more consistent level of hockey excellence, a more manageable tournament for host organisers and perhaps most importantly, is less exhausting for the players" - Peter Cohen commented.
Unfortunately it's not true. FIH didn't even give a chance to a 16-teams World Cup so nothing has been proved so far. Anyway if you want to "provide a more consistent level of hockey excellence" let just 4 or maybe 6 teams play in the World Cup finals. We would have a perfect tournament then.
If basketball rulers had used the same logic, some 5 years ago we would have had the US playing in the World Cup as the only team!!!
Pakistan and hockey's second league
I fully respect Mr Shahbaz Ahmed as a player but when he says that among 16 best teams "some sides are simply not in the same league as others" I cannot guess what countries he means. Maybe England because it lost 8-1 to Pakistan in Sydney, maybe Malaysia or Poland who lost 8-0 to Australia during the 1998 World Cup or maybe ... India, who would have failed to qualify to the finals these years if FIH had changed its mind before the preliminaries. Shahbaz's Pakistan would be a second league candidate themselves if they repeated their result from 1986 World Cup when they ended at 11th place.
Meanwhile, Poland managed to recover after the 1998 finals, played a good tournament at the Sydney olympics and had no difficulties with qualifying this year as well, Malaysia played quite well at the Champions Challenge and they're still a dangerous opponent for everybody, India whose performance at the Edinburgh qualifyer was a very poor one re-entered the Champions Trophy and England is still one of the best teams of Europe and also of the World.
This is just about sport - sometimes you are well prepared, you have a good tournament and you end higher in the final standings, sometimes your performance is worse and you end lower. There are roughly 15-17 nations in hockey who can compete with each other? Can Holland loose to Malaysia? Of course it would be a surprise but it's not impossible. Can Japan beat England? It's more or less the same story. Can Argentina, Spain or India (ranked at 7-9th place at Sydney) enter World Cup semifinals next year? I wouldn't be even surprised if one of them did so!
The Canadian readers who are more familiar to ice hockey may remember the situation in the 80s when only 8 teams competed in the World Cup's Group A. Almost every year, the last one - Germany, Poland or Switzerland was relegated to group B, just to be replaced by one of the others. Of course this led to the situation when weaker teams were loosing contact with the best nations and - what's logical - loosing games by more then 10 goals. In 1992 IHF let 12 teams play in the World Cup, and several years after they made the World Cup even broader letting 16 best teams to play. Was it bad for ice hockey? Not at all! The level in this game is slowly getting more and more equal. I thought I'd die when Poland (then number 8th in the world) lost 15-0 to Czechoslovakia (number 3) in 1989 - a quite typical result at that time. This year they played again (The Czech Republic are the actual world and olympic champions, and Poland is ranked at 15-16th place) - the result was 2-2!!!
Making the field hockey world bigger by letting more teams to play in the biggest events will never harm the sport! The same decision soccer's FIFA made at least twice during the last 22 years. In 1978 they had 16 teams competing in the WC, then they changed the number into 24, and finally we have 32 nations who hope they'll come back from the tournament with the golden Cup award. Even in handball and volleyball world cup finals consist of 24 teams each. This is because the World Cup is a special events which bring together ALL THE SOCCER/HOCKEY/HANDBALL/VOLLEYBALL WORLD, and not just: Holland, Korea, Pakistan, Australia, India, Germany, England, Argentina, Spain + 3 more nations out of let's say 10 who had a chance to qualify. Did you notice that in the last world tournaments we had every time almost the same nations competing? It's just embarrassing. It's getting boring.
Where have all the members gone?
The FIH is responsible for the current situation. For decades they were just deciding (real preliminaries to the O.G. were first played in the 1991) who will play in the Olympics and then in the World Cup finals, going a "cricket way", trimming the world of hockey into some 14 leading nations. In the future it'll surely put under a question mark it's presence at the olympic games. Instead of letting 16, 20 or maybe 24 teams to play, instead of letting them lose even 5, even 10 to nil, the FIH deciding bodies say "Just forget about hockey because you are too weak!".
Where are 100 other FIH members? Why don't they get a chance to play in normal World Cup preliminaries, like they have in soccer, handball and so on? Why don't you let them to play, to lose, then to loose by a lower margin, finally to be close to qualifying, and after years to reach the level at which you are able to compete in the finals?
Why is the World Cup still linked to the continental cups? This is an extremly absurd situation. I'll illustrate it with a good example. We'll organize in Poland the European Nations Cup preliminary tournament next year. Those who fail in 2002 (!) to qualify to the 2003 Barcelona finals, will have no chance to play in the 2006 World Cup preliminaries, which means they will not play in the 2008 Olympics as well! Can you see it???? Six years after that, a new generation of hockey players will pay the debts of their older colleagues!!! If you have an excellent U-19 team in 2002, these boys can end their careers because there is no sense to wait for their chance till 2012, when they are almost 30!!!
"A bigger World Cup means more matches and that means more days" - Shahbaz says. Short example - in hockey we have 16 teams and 9 matches, in rugby - 20 teams and 6 or 7 games, in soccer - 32 teams and ... 7 matches. A bigger World Cup means just ... more teams, other things are just technicalities! I can propose you several good competition systems which will include more than 20 teams and no more than 8 games!!!
"We should first wait for other teams to be good enough before letting them join the tournament" - "The News" daily quoted Mr Shahbaz as saying. This is something I would call "a FIH logic". HOW CAN THEY BE GOOD ENOUGH IF WE DON'T LET THEM TO PLAY??????????? Lower-ranked teams cannot just play a test matches against Holland because the Dutch will refuse to. The only chance for them to meet the best teams is just the World Cup, the Olympic Games, continental cups. If we don't let them, we can wait even 1000 years. But before they'll just stop playing hockey and our game will disappear...
Jakub R. Kumoch
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
|
CJ
12-22-2001 10:34 am
|
Report this post
|
In Africa we have two Continental Championships. One is meant to be the qualifier for the World Cup (the Africa Cup of Nations - hockey only), one for the Olympic Games (the All Africa Games - African Olympics). This does seem to be a fair way if only the timing can be sorted out - i.e. the ACN the year before the WC and the AAG just before the OG. It is for the men but not for the women.
As to the restricting the number of teams, I agree that this is a step backwards. The less strong nations MUST be given the opportunity to qualify, as this then gives a reason for trying to develop. Take away this chance and why should we bother with hockey?
|
|
Jakub R. Kumoch
12-22-2001 11:54 am
|
Report this post
|
It would be useful if we started thinking about making the World Cup finals even bigger than it's going to be next year. To be honest I was sure the 16-teams World Cup is just a temporary measure and maybe in the future we'd have 24 teams competing. That's why I was astonished at a decision which is a "backward" one.
If you have more teams, like in any other game, it doesn't metter if you let weaker teams to play. Okay they loose and go home but they're inspired to work harder and try to be better. In handball they have Groenland playing (and rather loosing) in almost every World Cup, and in football some smaller nations like Jamaica are joining the big tournaments as well. Nobody protested when basketball's Dream Team faced Angola, and for the Angolans it must have been a real adventure to play against Magic Johnson in 1992. Hockey should follow the other big games because THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING, AND THEY HAVE SOME EFFECTS. I used to be fond of handball years ago and I remember that in the 80s they also had like 12 leading teams. I was in shock when I learnt some 5 years ago after a long break, that even the Argentinians, Brazilians and even the Arabs play. In hockey we still have 12-14 nations getting to the World Cup finals. The only newcomer in comparison with the 80s is Korea who replaced the Soviet Union.
If you make the World Cup bigger. Then you can reserve - let's say - 2 places for Africa. Now the SA which is absolutely the strongest African team is blocking all the others. Egypt, Kenya, Zimbabwe or Uganda despite their splendid hockey traditions HAVE NO CHANCE AT ALL to go to any big world event except the WC qualifiers.
The same thing used to happen in Oceania where Australia blocked New Zealand and if FIH didn't cross their own rules letting the Black Sticks take a place aimed for an African nations (wasn't Ghana to replace Zimbabwe?) we would have had a real scandal.
I understand some nations i.e. Holland, Pakistan and somebody else don't want to loose time playing against X or Y country, but if you make hockey in these countries disappear by excluding them from the main stream, you will have nobody to play with. Six teams is not enough to be at the Olympic Games.
|
|
hp
12-22-2001 2:59 pm
|
Report this post
|
this article
IT IS UNFATHOMABLE THAT BECAUSE THE FIH CANNOT MANAGE A TOURNAMENT THAT THEY CAN DECIDE TO TRANSFER RSPONSIBILITY TO THE CONTINENTAL BODIES AND LIMIT PARTICIPANTS. NO WONDER THE SPORT GOES NOWHERE. FIH MOTTO SHOULD BE "THE LESS THE BETTER". IF ALL OF SPORT FOLLOWED THEIR LEAD WE WOULD HAVE ONE FOOTBALL LEAGUE, THREE WOMEN'S OLYMPIC SPORTS, AND 16 TEAMS IN THE NCAA BASKETBALL TOURNAMENT. WAKE UP. IT'S TIME TO PROMOTE THE SPORT. IF CURRENT LOCAL OR INTERNATIONAL BODIES CAN'T MANAGE EVENTS , ETC. GET SOMEONE WHO CAN. IT ISN'T LIKE THEY ARE MANAGING MERCEDES, MOCROSOFT OR SONY. THIS IS A SPORTS TOURNAMENT. DON'T REINVENT THE WHEEL. IT'S BEEN DONE IN HUNDREDS OF PLACES. GO FIND OUT HOW THEY DO IT.
|
|
elitist
12-22-2001 4:59 pm
|
Report this post
|
the world cup cannot possibly be an event open to one and all. to have a 24 team event is ridiculus.
if you want more teams let them play in a tournament like the champions challenge.
the most fair tournaments are where all teams can play each other not in half a dozen pools.
let the decent teams have a tournament where the standard is high in all games and it is constantly challenging.
there is a place for development and a place for the best to compete.
fih should be looking at other ways to improve hockey in a whole handful of countries. letting them play in a competition where they would be out of their league is NOT good development.
|
|
Tom Harris
12-22-2001 5:05 pm
|
Report this post
|
In the U.S., the funding we receive for Men's hockey is tied to the events in which we will be competing.
Fewer tournaments means less money and weaker teams in a spiral to ever weaker teams until there is no team.
Perhaps this is what the FIH would like. If so, they are going about it the right way by restricting the numbers of teams in tournaments.
|
|
Ash
12-22-2001 11:54 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
An 18 or 24 team format with 6 teams in each group and the top 8 teams qualifying for the quarter finals would be an ideal format. Teams would play only one extra game than the current format while giving many teams the chance to compete. This is the only way for hockey to become a more popular sport. Even events like the champions trophy and champions challenge should be extended to 8 teams.
|
|
Liz
12-23-2001 4:57 am
|
Report this post
|
I would like to disagree with Jakub on understanding that some nations like Holland don't want to lose time playing against teams that might not present a challenge to them.
While it is true that strong teams like The Netherlands are and need to be playing most of their matches against strong nations to have a training effect and keep their level of play as high as it is, I do not think that playing against a team that is not in the say top 12 or 15 will do them any harm. It is purely and simply arrogance that they won't.
The French soccer team is arguably the best in the world at this moment, yet they're not too arrogant to have a friendly with Algeria (which was never finished, but that's another story). In basketball the Dream Team was never too arrogant to compete in Olympic Games, even though it reduced the rest of the participants to compete for silver. And surely you will all remember that swimmer for Equatorial Guinea who nearly drowned in the Sidney 2000 100-meter free style and got cheered on by audience and fellow swimmers alike...
There're plenty more examples, but the bottom line is this: to give athletes (and teams) who may not have a realistic opportunity to get onto the podium, or win the game/competition (but then again, you never know), or even get close to winning, the opportunity to participate and compete is essential for promoting a sport or sports event (and some promotion in the case of hockey is badly needed if I might say so).
But more importantly - call me naive or idealistic, but I do think so - it is about showing respect for the determination, effort, and courage of fellow athletes who're giving their best, but aren't as lucky as to dispose of the same amount of resources or maybe even talent.
If you want an elite, make it a professional sport I say, but do take a moment to look around and realize that all professional sports at an international level will always allow for "weaker" nations to get some exposure to the big ones.
|
|
Jakub R. Kumoch
12-23-2001 6:46 am
|
Report this post
|
Elitist. I repeat! If basketball followed your way of thinking nobody would be entitled to play against the Dream Team and in football Senegal wouldn't be allowed to play in the World Cup as well.
There are many systhems. Let's take the other sports. HANDBALL - 24 teams, 4 pools of 6, then 16-teams play-offs, 5th and 6th places in their groups are off. In total world champions play 9 games. RUGBY - 20 teams, 5 pools of 4, the winners go to the quaterfinals, the runners-up and one third place team face each other in a extra round, and the three winners join the best five in the quaterfinals, In total 6-7 games. ICE-HOCKEY - 4 pools of 4, three best teams from every pool go further, they make 2 pools of 6 and their reults all counts. Then we have 4 best teams from each of 2 pools going to the quaterfinals. In total 9 games. FOOTBALL (1986-94) - 24 teams, 6 pools of 4, the winners, runners-up and 4 best 3rd-ranked teams go to the play-off. In total 7 games.
|
|
Alexei
12-23-2001 8:50 am
|
Report this post
|
Points Taken!
I really like Jakub's points. I just dont know about the European qualification system. Do you have only one Continental tournament? In Asia the qualifier for the World Cup shall be the Asia Cup and the Olympic Games is the Asian Games.The same like Africa I guess. But then if the European Cup is the only continental championship; like you said Jakub the good younger team will have to suffer the older generations 'sins'.
Reverting the World Cup to fewer teams do have their pros and cons. Shahbaz could be right in saying that some teams are not in the same league as others. The officials may prefer a shorter & manageable tournament (so they say) But then why decide when a proper 16 team tournament has yet to complete? We have various tournament with 16 teams before this but none so far with the men's and women's WC format. The women's qualifer were played with only 14 teams remember?
If the FIH wants a managable tournament why cramp everything into 14 days of hockey? Why not give more time for teams to rest since they have 7 group matches to play and 2 more in the classifications?
Some teams in the current World Cup took years to reach this level. Cuba are debutants for long they have been shadowed by Argentina and Canada. Japan took more than 20 years to come back. Are these teams the weaker ones meant by mr Shahbaz? How did he know? Canada did not qualify to the World Cup but did Pakistan beat them in Sydney?
There were vast improvements in standards when compare 98 World Cup and Sydney 2000. Malaysia and Poland finished 11th and 12th in both tournament, but both teams showed improvements in Sydney and both were awful in Utrecht. It could be other teams playing that morning game in Sydney! The sign was clear that there was improvement in standard and you have to increase the number to let other teams chance to play at this level. It's not that we're being symphatetic to others who don't qualify but it is apparent that other teams begin to show improvement and deserve a shot in the World Cup! When we have more teams at least there will be a purpose for teams to get fundings to train and compete to reach the World Cup. If the World Cup is for the 12 best teams in the World, what purpose is it for the other next 12 or 18 teams to train and play hockey? We already have the Champions Trophy to let the top six teams play each other anually, now we have the champions challenge for the next six teams. So 12 teams have a purpose to play top level hockey frequently now. What about others? It is like we are maintaining the standard of the current 12 teams while letting the others stagnate at their respective levels. It is unavoidable in the first few tournaments of 16 teams there will be teams in the 14th to 16th bracket that will lose by bigger margins. Do they want to lose by such huge scoreline? Nobody wants to come to the World Cup to be humiliated. Everybody wants the chance to play with the best. FIH should accept this as a challenge. Who knows the same team will come back stronger in the next tournament? (refer Malaysia-Poland case)
Give the 2002 World Cups the chance they deserve.
|
|
Cool
12-23-2001 6:58 pm
|
Report this post
|
Great for Hockey!
Jakub,
Great going! You comments have generated a healthy debate. The comments entered clearly indicate that hockey is alive in many minds. This is promotion for the sport!
I agree, more teams should participate in the world cup. Hockey is larger than the FIH!
FIH should poll the number of nations that paly hockey region-wise. Then proportionate number of teams should represent the region in the world cup.
Example:
Assuming it is decided that 20 teams shall participate in the world cup.
There are are 4 regions:
Americas - 6 nations registered with FIH
Continental - 22 nations registered with FIH
Asia - 14 Nations registered with FIH
Africa - 10 Nations registered with FIH
Total number of nations enetered: 52
Then proportionately teams participating region-wise in the world cup should be:
Continental - 8
Americas - 2
Asia - 6
Africas - 4
The qualification process should be championships played in the region. Not the Olympics, world cup etc.
This shall allow for more matches, generate more inetrest, revenue and truly promote the game globally.
This should give many more nations the incentive to register with the FIH.
Whatever, the selection criteria, format etc., it is evident that more nations should be allowed to participate!
For the sake of hockey!
//
|
|
madi
12-24-2001 12:07 am
|
Report this post
|
my two cents worth
well, i'd have to agree with Jakub, reverting to the 12-team format is a step backward for hockey, as it is now, we already have a 12-team tournament for the Olympics, and it is unlikely that the IOC will allow an increae in the number of teams, seen from their rejection of the increase for the women's event. So why not have a 16-team event for the FIH showcase event, the World Cup?...16 is an ideal number, 20 or 24 would be an enormous burden on the hosts...remember this is hockey, not football, okay...i really don't understand the rationale by the FIH that "it'll ease the burden on the hosts and players"...an increase by 4 teams will likely have minimal effect...and bring up the profile of hockey in the less-established nations...also, the continental qualification criteria can be further modified, with the winners (and maybe) plus the runner-up qualifying automatically for the WC or Olympics, and the 3rd to 5th ranked nations qualify for a WC or Olympics qualifying tourney, PLUS a wild card entry based on current performance, chosen by FIH, so that the mess that was the NZ men for the Edinburgh qualifiers won't happen again.
|
|
Shawn Hindy
12-24-2001 2:09 am
|
Report this post
|
I first want to thank Jakub for a great article and that I agree with him.
I believe giving more teams a chance to compete in bigger events is the way to go.
I play hockey for the U.S. and competed in the World Cup Qualifier in Scotland. It was so much fun and exciting for everyone on our team. We came into the tournament being ranked last and left ranked ahead of expectations and with respect.
But more than that, it gave our entire team, especially the younger guys, more motivation and inspiration to continue to play and train hard and see where it is possible to go.
WITHOUT A CHANCE TO SEE YOUR DREAMS, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO REACH THEM.
If you look at every sport and tournament there is always one team that comes out of nowhere and does great. With a 12 team WC it will keep the same teams doing the same boring stuff. Change and parity is what makes sports exciting and fun. More teams is definitely better. Why would the biggest sport in the world continue to increase their WC tournment?
FIH has not had a good year. With the New Zealand WCQ scandal, to the Women's World Cup Qualifier chaos that is continuing still. They need to check their egos at the door and look at what other sports are doing to grow their sport and enhance the competition, which seems to happening in every sport but hockey.
Without the increase in tournament size from last year I would not have been able to compete in such a fun tournament and have one of my greatest hockey memories.
Hopefully with some more voices on this issue we can make FIH re-think their decision and they will eventually make the right one, to have at least 16 teams at the World Cup.
|
|
Liz
12-24-2001 2:59 am
|
Report this post
|
One more thought
To keep the WC at 16 teams is sensible, but to expand it may be a little too early I think.
Certainly you wouldn't want to have to go begging for the teams to participate, and as it is now, you'd probably have to. Many bigger tournaments in the recent past have seen reserves participate because for one reason or other an original participant couldn't or wouldn't - the Olympic tournament, the men's and women's World Cup Qualifier, the men's Champions Challenge...
Also, with the embarrassment of the men's Champions Challenge fresh on their minds, where 3 of eight invited teams bowed out, I can see where the decision to reduce the WC to 12 teams would come from...
|
|
Ella
12-24-2001 2:51 pm
|
Report this post
|
To Shawn Hindy
Saw you play at the WCQ, good job by the US and nice individual performance too. I loved your fan club ;-)
|
|
Sandeep
12-24-2001 9:28 pm
|
Report this post
|
Jakub's Ladder
Jakub I couldn't agree more......
The FIH talks endlessly about the 'marketing' of hockey as if it will suddenly explode onto the world scene with no groundwork. I mean look at the number of sports channels available today yet they find it more pallatable to show the world's strongest man competition ad naseum but just try to even find a hockey highlight package on any of the thousands of sports reports around the world.
How can this be?
|
|
Vihar
12-25-2001 1:21 am
|
Report this post
|
Yeah I agree that expanding the WC to
16 teams or even 20 is agood idea. We
really need to encourage hockey in upcoming nations eg Cuba, Bangladesh,
Belgium,Egypt etc.
However I feel the olympics should
remain at 12 teams.
|
|
Lawrence
12-25-2001 7:58 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
I strongly doubt that there`s any country in the world, besides Holland and Australia maybe, that will be able 2 host a WC, when 16, 20 or 24 teams compete! This will cost so much money, that it isn`t realistic to think it can be done. Furhtermore, I think it`s really ignorant of Liz to say that the Netherlands wouldn`t want to play the weaker teams out of arrogance! In my opinion they wouldn`t mind playing them, but just not in the WC, as it would just take up energy they could maybe really need in the real matches of the tournement! A couple of years ago they played a game in and against Chili!!!! But I do agree the FIH should wait with any comments about the system untill after the WC.
|
|
Lawrence
12-25-2001 8:05 pm
|
Report this post
|
PS
Does anybody truelly think that people will want to buy a ticket for, for example, with all respect, Ghana v. Cuba??
|
|
Jakub R. Kumoch
12-26-2001 1:21 am
|
Report this post
|
Dear Lawrence,
First let me answer to your last question. Depends on how we sell the ticket. If you pay for all day, that doesn't matter, and if you pay for a game, there can be a few spectators, but you can never expect a full Nou Camp in hockey. I would definitely come as I don't regret to have seen almost all Chile's games at the WCQ.
Second thing. I can just repeat what I was told in the Polish Hockey Union: "We've been trying to invite them (Holland) for years. Each time they refuse". And this is about POLAND not Chile. The result wouldn't be so clear now if they came to play here.
Who would host a 16-teams tournament" - not only Australia and Holland. Many countries would i.e. Malaysia :))) Plus at least Japan, Korea, China, Argentina, South Africa, Germany, Spain, Poland, Scotland and many others. What you need is just two pitches and more flexible FIH rules. Even if you have 24 teams competing and you play the tournament in 4 pools (MAXIMUM PLAN), and then 16-teams play-off, you need like 8-10 days for the round robin and 6-8 days for the play-offs (16-18 days). This is not beyond our possibilities. The flights are much more expensive than staying a bit longer.
Liz, you've exaggerated a bit. There is nobody to beg. I can see at least 30-35 men's teams (including 16 which will play in Kuala Lumpur + 9 which are off after Edinburgh qualifier) who would certainly go to compete even now if we invited them to Malaysia. You can add several European nations, which have quite a developped hockey - Switzerland, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Croatia, Sweden etc. It wouldn't be a harm for the game if we saw them once in a big event. By the way - Sweden had 2-2 draw against Spain in Barcelona at the 1999 European Nations Cup preliminaries. They were off after having lost to France just 1-0.
|
|
Liz
12-26-2001 10:02 am
|
Report this post
|
To Lawrence
I am sorry if I offended you or any other Dutch people round here. I never meant to say all Dutch are arrogant.
My statement is based on personal experience from tournaments, where on various occasions Dutch players behaved in a cold and unfriendly way and displayed a wholly inappropriate "diva attitude". Much unlike other teams that, while being as focussed on the game, as dedicated, and as willing to give their absolute best, still are polite, friendly, and outgoing.
Your having to go back as far as a game against Chile "a couple of years ago" to show the Dutch aren't too arrogant to play weaker opponents proves my point more than yours I think.
As for not playing weaker opponents at a WC, I don't think they should have to play more matches at the WC. More participants as pointed out by several people in this forum doesn't necessarily mean more matches. And if they play the same number of matches, then they should be happy to have weaker opponents, as this surely takes up less energy and gets them to the finals in better shape...
Regarding Ghana vs. Cuba, I couldn't agree more with Jakub, day passes are the way to go (as practised at the WCQ and the Champions Trophy). And the Chileans did put up a good show in Edinburgh!
|
|
Applebee's Army
12-26-2001 3:28 pm
|
Report this post
|
"Where are 100 other FIH members? Why don't they get a chance to play in normal World Cup preliminaries, like they have in soccer, handball and so on?"
I agree; the hype that things like soccer's "Hexagonal" competition in North America actually built a fan following in the United States for men's soccer (what a concept, for a nation that worships Mia Hamm).
In field hockey, instead of bringing all the continental participants to one place for a 10-day tournament, let every nation have a chance to host a Test. Every country will have the responsibility of securing umpires, home grounds, and logistical support. With that, comes fan support. And, of course, little things like having the Canadian men hosting Chile when it is 32.000001 degrees farenheit in Vancouver in February ....
Yes, it could turn out to be expensive. However, that will lead to an increase in the need for sponsorship dollars, professionalism, and top managers. This is what the sport needs, worldwide.
|
|
think globally
12-26-2001 3:39 pm
|
Report this post
|
interesting that americans don't support the reduction of teams.
more teams is the only way they are going to get into the world cup.
all these examples are given of other sports, the most obvious being football. who really cares about the earlier rounds and who cares about the qualifying games. this isn't promoting the sport.
if fih interested in promoting the sport and developing other counties then they should take the top 20 teams in and organise four, 5-nation tournaments with the #1,5,11, 16 and 20th ranked teams in one tournament etc. if fih helped fund these tournaments than many developing countires would have at least one decent competition per year. the world cup and champions trophy could be left as they are.
there are many ways to promote and develop hockey. we are not in the same league as soccer and don't have the same funds. we have to look for different solutions.
getting the US to the world cup can be achieved in other ways than increasing the number of teams to 20 or so....
|
|
Sandeep
12-26-2001 8:58 pm
|
Report this post
|
Lawrence's sellouts
Hey Lawrence,
are the staduims packed for Korea vs Argentina? There were lots of tickets at the world cup in Utrecht for virtually every game except when the home team played or the playoffs.
That is the problem......even in Holland, the strongest all around hockey nation with the most affluent fans coverage on TV and in the newspaper was not exactly overwhelming even though the men's team became champions and the women's team reached the final.
How do you explain that?
|
|
Jakub R. Kumoch
12-27-2001 12:12 am
|
Report this post
|
Introducing new test tournaments instead of making World Cup bigger doesn't help a lot. Most of the members will not find sponsors for going to a commercial tournament. That's why Poland was not in Malaysia at the Champions Challenge. Spending $ 50,000 proved to be too difficult.
I'm asking again? Are all the other games wrong when they're doing what I've just proposed???
|
|
Alexei
12-27-2001 1:06 am
|
Report this post
|
It's apparent the only way for hockey to move forward now is to expand. With an increase in number, the US had the opportunity to play in the Qualifier (that's what Shawn said and I couldn't agree more) I saw the 97 WCQ in KL, and looking back at what Shawn said, if things were to happen for 2006, some teams will not get a nearer opportunity to play in the World Cup.
My rough idea on what FIH plans for 2006 World Cup qualifying procedure:
12 teams will play in 2006. 2 places are reserved for the hosts and defending champions. the other 5 places for the continental champions. And that leaves 5 places more to grab. The qualifying tournament have always have the same format and number as the world cup, so that leave 7 other teams to play to make it a 12 team qualifying tournament (if they want to make a qualifying tournament). The total participating team prior to the 2006 World Cup is now 2 + 5 + 5 + 7, and that's only 19 teams. Compare that to the run up to 2002 world cup, we have 9 automatic qualifiers plus 16 others in Edinburgh and that's 25 participants. Imagine what differences 6 places can do to some developing hockey nations.
Being in my 10th year of following International Hockey I've always look forward to seeing new teams involved in higher level. the only new team I'll be watching next year is Cuba. If it was a 12 team tournament will hockey fans get an opportunity of seeing new teams? International footballers meet one another sometimes once in years in the world stage. Whereas in hockey, top international teams see each other almost every year. Are the FIH intend to deprive the lower teams their chances?
|
|
Albert
12-27-2001 4:48 am
|
Report this post
|
Somethings got to be wrong!
I think the definition of hockey being in a bad state is when only 800 or so spectators turning out to watch a recent womens Aus vs NZ hockey test in Sydney (yes the same city that turns out 110 000 people to an AFL or Rugby match)
And... when the last TV or newspaper coverage of hockey ends each olympics. Now if it is like this in Australia (a 'top' nation in hockey) the FIH has a huge job ahead of themselves to get exposure and growth for the support of hockey. $$$$$$ :-)
|
|
Scott
12-27-2001 9:41 pm
|
Report this post
|
Promoting the sport
The more countries you involve the larger your event becomes and the more attention you will receive from the media. If we want to promote the sport then we should be encouraging more teams to play in the bigger events. How do you expect there to be any change in the sport when you keep doing the same things? We must think of the bigger picture and what will be best for the sport.
Sure having a tournament with fewer teams will be an easier way to keep the level of play high. The only problem is it will be virtually impossible for a new team to break through on the international scene. Don't you think the other countries will get tired of playing in second rate tournaments?
As for the excuse of the tournament being too large to organize that just shows the problems we are having in the FIH. If they can't handle the job then get some one who can because this is only another step in the wrong direction for a sport that is consistently loosing in popularity and funding.
|
|
fan
12-28-2001 1:40 am
|
Report this post
|
you have to be kidding
hi there all
First of all merry christmas to you all and i hope that you are all well. I trust that some of you would not have sent a christmas card to the FIH after this current carry on.
For me, the FIH needs to develop a proper decision making process in order to find the best outcome - wait until after the 2002 world cups to see how bad the bad teams really are (if at all). The FIH should not base a decision on the opinion of one or a few great players - quite often great players don't actually make great administration officials.
I think that the FIH should be more professional right across the board - from decision making, funding, marketing and the development of hockey worldwide. The FIH cannot make excuses for there being a lack of money in hockey - what have we done to make the game/events more attractive. We don't need to change the rules of the game but instead change the way we operate. For example - the world cup does not need to be played in one arena - it can be played in two cities provided that the turfs are good enough. This way we will increase crowds potentially. Maybe we have the tourneys in one city because that is what has always been done. Obviously this will increase costs but there is more potential for corporate sponsorship here.
Being more professional will also increase our funding prospects - i wouldn't give anything to an organisation that was run in a shoddy manner - i doubt the worlds great teams are run in an amateur way.
So whats the answer - The FIH must have a factual basis for making decisions so let the world cup run with 16 teams - let it happen twice and then make a decision - what made them think that 12 wqas the right number?
Qualifying - if the FIH has qualifying criteria in relation to continents then the FIH should front up with the funding for these continental tournaments.
I may sound like money is everything - it maybe but I know that it is out there for hockey and we just don't know or are too scared to do whatever it takes to obtain this.
make sure someone replies to this because it took ages to type.
|
|
CJ
12-28-2001 4:16 am
|
Report this post
|
As a follow-up to Cool's number of countries registered with FIH, there are 5 Continentental Federations not 4. These are:
Africa
Asia
Europe
Oceania
Pan-American
Also there are approx 117 registered countries, not 52 - the first vote for President was tied 40-40 in Brussels.
In Africa there are 16 nations not 10. Same goes for the other Continents.
However, it isn't the number of registered countries, but the actual number of countries that take part in the Continental event that is counted towards the places allocated to the WC. This is only known when the event takes place.
|
|
COOL
12-28-2001 9:35 am
|
Report this post
|
Statistics
CJ,
Thanks for the correction. Mine was only an example. It said so on the top in bold.
You sure are store house of facts n figures!
Have a great 2002 building up on your statistics!
//
|
|
Liz
12-28-2001 10:11 am
|
Report this post
|
I am a little surprised by fan's suggestion that the WC might be held at two different venues instead of one...
I remember one recent event that was held at two venues, the Women's WCQ, and the result was not exactly encouraging - there was (or maybe still is) controversy about the fact that the TD wasn't on site for the Lithuania-Ireland game and based her decision on what was reported to her by others.
|
|
Astonishingly Bewildered
12-28-2001 12:44 pm
|
Report this post
|
FIH is Run Poorly
If the FIH was a profit oriented organization, it would have been bankrupt many years ago.
Let me explain.
Just as today, in the 1950s and 1960s soccer was the most popular sport in the world. Back then soccer came narrowly ahead of field hockey in popularity. Up until the mid 70s fieldhockey was the third most popular sport in the world for men (second for women). It was not uncommon to see 50-60 thousand people jam packed in one match.
Today, fieldhockey is beaten by even ballroom number of participants, sponsorship and television coverage. I would be shocked to see more than 30,000 people in any international game at any level.
The FIH has become the laughing stock of sports organizations. It has set unparalleled benchmarks in bad marketing. The decision to cut down the world cup back down 12 teams is just one example.
The FIH has even been successful in dwindling the popularity of the sport in once awe-inspired hockey loving countries such as India and Pakistan. In the 60s 70s and 80s Pakistans whole starting forward line was superstar quality. Now most Pakistani's come and tell me that they had only one superstar in the last 20 years. And the reason - no kids are playing fieldhockey in those anymore.
So how do you market a sport. You have to be creative, bold, and risk-taking. Most importantly, you have to think big. The decision to expand to 16 teams was a step in the right direction. The decision to cut back to 12 teams has shown me nothing has changed.
|
|
fan
12-28-2001 4:16 pm
|
Report this post
|
RE: astonishingly bewildered
hi there
I take it that your comments regarding profitability was in reference to me saying that money is everything.
I still stand by that - what I was trying to say was that the FIH should work as hard as possible to make money which will then be spent on the game and other issues - ie "You have to be creative, bold, and risk-taking. Most importantly, you have to think big."
Why have $1million to spend but with a little extra we can have $5million to spend. same for crowd figures - why is 3,000 an acceptable number for internationals in some countries - why can't we get 15-30,000 for matches?
The reasons are - lack of facilties in some countries - turfs do not large enough stadiums, game is not sold to the public enough, officials accept that getting the games played is the be-all and end all (this is a local club attitude), we are too scared to lose - why not spend money on getting some 'razzamattaz' ie cheerleaders/cheerboys, bands, bars and food so people will want to come down and watch and have a great days entertainment as well.
Overall the FIH will not make money but will simply have more money to spend - obviously there would be a major problem if the FIH made a whole lot of money and did not spend it.
In terms of being more professional and thinking big - has the FIH considered getting formal advice from consultants/marketing firms? they may be able to help in the decsion making process.
reply somebody
|
|
Liz
12-29-2001 11:58 am
|
Report this post
|
I agree but...
...have one correction to make: you're mixing up two things.
The lack of appropriate venues in some countries, the miserable promotion we see in most tournaments, and the failure to provide entertainment as mentionned by fan is NOT the FIH's or the officials' business. Tournaments are organized by national organizations (or local entities in the case of smaller tournaments).
The FIH could maybe provide some assistance to national organizations or initiate some sort of knowledge exchange, but that's it.
I am thinking of the possibility of compilating a "tournament organization handbook". The Dutch for example could share their ideas and concepts - their tournaments are perfectly organized and provide all the entertainment you need (no cheerleaders though - at least not at this year's Champions Trophy ;-).
While I readily admit that not everything will be feasible in all countries, for lack of funding or other reasons, a handbook could provide valuable guidance.
This exchange of knowledge is a simple concept, and it has been adopted by the FIH's development section. On their webpage they say that there's no need to "waste time re-inventing the wheel" - I agree and I think the same is true for organizing a hockey tournament.
As for getting people to watch games, a crowd of 3,000 in some cases is aiming high already. At the Edinburgh WCQ, many games had much less than that. I'll also tell you why: because the organizers had practically forgotten about marketing and promotion. They had posters that were only ready a few days before the tournament, and I never saw any of them outside the venue itself and the accomodation. They didn't even inform the Scottish hockey community, which would have been the easiest thing. How can you expect spectators to show up when nobody knows about your tournament?
On the very contrary, the Rotterdam Champions Trophy again: even though they only had about a month to organize everything, there were posters and flags all over town, and the national organization made sure that everyone who has anything to do with hockey in Holland knew when and where and what was going to be happening...
|
|
Thirkell
12-29-2001 10:00 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
Jakub and his supporters have hit the nail on the head. If fieldhockey is going to survive it has to grow. In order to grow it has to become more inclusive not more exclusive. The FIH is entrusted with the task taking our wonderful game into the future - ever stronger and more expansive. Somehow it has stumbled here and looks like it is protecting an "old boys club" rather than than giving "the new boys on the block" a chance to get closer to those at the top. I am sure that this is very far from what they intend and they will have to be big enough to change their short sighted decision at their next council metting. If the delegates allow themselves to be blinkered on this issue then sadly hockey will sink into oblivion. It desparately needs to stick with the 16 team formula and be looking at the 24 team format in the realistic future. To survive in our modern world a sport needs money. To get the money it needs sponsors. To entice the sponsors it needs publicity. To generate the publicity it needs more participants and supporters. Enough said - each one of you out there - lobby your FIH delegates.
|
|
Jake
12-30-2001 3:48 am
|
Report this post
|
All I wanted for X-mas was a turf pitch in lowly Bermuda. I have proudly worn the jersey and been beaten soundly in it. But how ever shall I see the next crop of talent on the island compete if the F.I.H.'s idea of development is a top down solution. The fish has a new head now but still the body is bad.
It is good that some competition is being stimulated by other organizations like the Commonwealth Games, it forces teams like Pakistan, India and England to tangle with the likes of Barbados, Bangledesh and Kenya. But the F.I.H. is only interested in the "hockey gods" and the product sell, we all know it, we all see it and it pains us all to death.
Creating a new tournament in the Champions Challenge should have been seen as as insulting as tourneys come, because frankly it was sitll the top teams in a different venue.
All of the comments say one thing commonly, it is of no benefit of the top countries to have to play down. The F.I.H. should alot a little less time to the care and maintainance of top and start making bigger strides at the bottom.
|
|
fly on the wall
12-31-2001 1:42 am
|
Report this post
|
12-team world cup
The World Cup is for the best teams, not for every team. That's why you have qualifiers. 12 teams is the best format, it means every match counts. In the 2002 World Cups about to be played with 16 teams you'll find mid-strength teams can afford to lose a match and still progress to round 2 where they can still afford to lose a match before the semis. This is wrong.
And here's a concept to ponder. Instead of penalty shootouts for semi-finals why not have the higher-ranked team progress if scores are level after extra time ? It would give some benefit to teams who to play to win, not just to scrape through anyway they can. I'll tell you what - I've seen this format in domestic competitions - and it makes for exciting finals.
The grand final, of course, must be decided by some kind of playing outcome - maybe dropping players off each half in extra time.
And the experimental rule limiting the number of defenders in their own 25 should become law ASAP. God what a boring Olympics Sydney was - the hopeless teams just stacked their defences and prayed for a breakaway goal. All the more reason they should not be at the World Cup or Olympics.
There is room for elitism, and plenty of for egalitarianism. Let's not get them confused.
|
|
Raj - Canada
12-31-2001 1:53 pm
|
Report this post
|
Marketing
I agree with comments above that reducing the number of teams down to 12 is an asinine move only the idiots who run the FIH could have made. In terms of marketing I think the players and supporters themselves have to make the effort to get hockey on t.v. . With a plethora of sports stations to choose from I think we should all start emailing, writing or calling these stations to encourage them to shoe some hockey on t.v even if it is on a trial basis. If some of the premier events like the world cup or champions league could receive some air time it may whet the appetite for more. But unfortuately I think the effor has to come from us all rather than the FIH who have continued to mismanage this game to relative worldwide obscurity.
|
|
Alexei
01-01-2002 12:43 am
|
Report this post
|
re: 12 team world cup
Does a 16 team world cup cater for every team? It just increases others chances to compete. All we look for in this topic is an increase in WC participants so we can have more teams participating starting from the qualifying level(s). The top 12 teams have the advantage of playing hockey regularly thanks to the CT and CC. They are secured for years maintaining top level hockey unless a period of poor performances kick them out completely of the circle. Look at Soviet Union. Ever since they were unable to maintain WC status with the performance of Belarus in 94, and 97 qualifers, how close Russia have ever been to the top level?
Some teams took years to reach World Cup level. When it was a 12 team tournament, Malaysia waited for 16 years just to get to back into the circle. Japan needed more than 20 years, and it was all thanks to the magic number 16. I've heard the name France in the past world Cup (1990?). Will they get any closer to the WC if things are back to 12 teams?
|
|
Sandeep
01-01-2002 5:11 pm
|
Report this post
|
Raj means King
what an outstanding idea Raj I think you should make a webform available so that it can be downloaded and faxed or emailed to the appropriate broadcaster.
You could make it available for each event and people could just fill it out online modify it with their own comments and send it in.
|
|
HKY FN
01-01-2002 9:58 pm
|
Report this post
|
THINK GLOBALLY
YOUR COMMENTS BELIE YOUR NAME. YOU HAVE THE MOST NARROW, MYOPIC, AND PAROCHIAL VIEWS OF ALL COMMENTERS.IF THIS SPORT IS TO SURVIVE AND THRIVE IT MUST THINK BIGGER AND BROADER. DOES ANYONE KNOW IF FIH MEMBERS EVEN SEE THESE COMMENTS. MAYBE A CAMPAIGN SHOULD BE DIRECTED TOWARD THEM?
|
|
Yan Huckendubler
01-02-2002 10:38 am
|
Report this post
|
WC Qualification Process
I am a strong supporter of the 16-team World Cup for all the reasons presented by Jakub and reinforced by most of the contributors, although I don’t support the format of having two successive round robins that possibly contributed to the bad taste left by the recent 16-team competitions (Junior Men’s and Women’s WC, Men’s WC Qualifiers), but this is another topic altogether!
That said, some ideas expressed in this thread are interesting to further develop our sport worldwide and I specifically refer to the idea of opening the WC qualification process to ALL teams, football (soccer) style, with home and away games in each group.
Alexei calculated above that, whatever the format, the number of teams involved in the “World Cup” (including the qualifiers) is rather small. The Continental Championships are now used as “pre-qualifiers” with the consequences that:
1) A poor show at a continental competition throws you out of the loop for a very long time;
2) Some teams can play a whole WC campaign (Continental, Qualifier and Final Tournament) without ever playing at home; this was the case for the Canadian Team that played in the 1998 WC in Holland after playing the pre-qualifier in Italy (1996) and the Qualifier in Malaysia (1997).
I know that we shouldn’t compare ourselves to sports such as football or rugby, but there is nothing wrong at looking at what is done next door. Apart from expanding the number of teams in the Final Tournament, FIFA (Football International Federation) has recently decided that only the host country will now qualify automatically for the Final Tournament, even the previous winner will have to go through the qualification process! The reason is to give a chance to ALL countries to play in the “World Cup” (even though it is in the preliminary round) and to host stronger (sometimes MUCH stronger) teams that would never otherwise consider rubbing shoulders with them.
Of course, that means that some mighty stars have to travel to far away destinations and play in less than stellar conditions, but imagine the marketing opportunity for the local hockey community if Malta or the Faeroe Islands (only examples!) could have a chance to host Holland for an official “World Cup” match! It would certainly be easier to muster support and sponsorship for such an event than for sending your National Team to a far away tournament without any chance of getting TV images.
The labels “World Cup” and “Olympic Games” are still prestigious (even at the “qualifier” stage) in a sport world that has seen an expansion of meaningless or commercial competitions. I have attended a WC Qualifier soccer game between Canada and Mexico that became a huge media and popular event when it would have only attracted a handful of spectators if it had been a friendly game or part of a pseudo-competition even baptized with a flashy name such as “Champions Challenge”.
A wide open WC qualification process would also keep some of the top nations on their toes: in football, Holland, semi-finalist of the 1998 WC, didn’t even make it to the second round of qualification this time around!
|
|
Yan Huckendubler
01-02-2002 11:00 am
|
Report this post
|
Competition in only one location...
Liz, I am a little surprised by your argument for keeping a competition in one and only one venue (“the TD cannot be in more than one place”).
Without going again to the examples of soccer or rugby (that are holding their WC competitions in multiple cities), the 1998 World Cup in Utrecht was run on two fields at Galgenwaard Stadium. Even though these fields were only a couple hundred meters apart, the TD couldn’t attend both games.
In case of problem/controversy/protest when he/she is not there, the TD should be able to rely completely on the Technical Officials (or ATD, or whatever the person in charge at the other field is called). In doubt, there is always the recourse to the videotapes.
|
|
Liz
01-02-2002 1:27 pm
|
Report this post
|
Yan - I agree with you, the TD should definitely be able to rely on the Technical Officials. And I also admit that it is impossible for the TD to see all games, even if there is only one venue, as in every "bigger" tournament, there will be two pitches, and one can never concentrate on two games at a time.
To be honest, I wasn't really intending to make an argument, I was only stating a fact. Two different venues is fine for me, as I personally think that it is the system that needs reform. TO decisions should not need a TD backup, especially if the TD isn't even present.
Going back to soccer once more, their umpires know their rules and take decisions that are final. Video analysis will sometimes prove them to be wrong, but it is unheard of that a game is repeated partially or entirely (at least not to my knowledge, I stand to be corrected).
|
|
Jakub R. Kumoch
01-02-2002 2:06 pm
|
Report this post
|
To Yan
I share the idea of having separate qualification processes to the World Cup, Olympic Games and continental cups with every FIH member having the right to participate. Although I think the idea of home-and-away matches is rather unrealistic one. Most of the federations wouldn't be able to afford it. However you can always divide teams willing to take part into pools and play separate qualifying tournaments. Then some less experienced but developing members could host them.
By the way, if you separate WC, OG and continental cups you also avoid the ever-lasting-problem with Oceania. New Zealand and Australia could just compete in an Asia & Oceania zone as they used to do it in football years ago. As they're the only active Oceanian members, we should absolutely avoid another scandal that was about to happen this year.
|
|
Jim
01-03-2002 12:14 pm
|
Report this post
|
television coverage
Greetings All...
I have very much enjoyed this intelligent and passionate discussion of hockey and would like to only add my voice to the chorus asking for greater efforts from the FIH in promoting this great sport. Would someone from the FIH (anonymously or otherwise) please weigh in and tell us what television contracts have been signed (or are in final negotiations) for the mens and womens world cups? Does the FIH have a website which lists the members, staff members, and responsibilities? Does the FIH have a video catalog which includes highlights from past Olympics and world cups?
|
|
fozzy
01-03-2002 12:28 pm
|
Report this post
|
world cup
having been to the last 2 world cups as a spectator i am grateful that the FIH is cutting the teams from 16 down to 12. not only will this raise the level of play because countries will have to compete at an even higher level to get in, there will be no games such as Belgium vs. Poland etc. Not to knock these countries but when there are teams like germany, holland, spain, to mention a few, who really wants to see belgium and poland?? the other thing that would be a good idea for the FIH is keeping the men's and women's world cups combined. I really found that the 98 world cup was better than the 94 because of the women hockey which was for the most part a pleasure to watch.
|
|
Observer
01-03-2002 1:59 pm
|
Report this post
|
??Fozzy
I am sure the supporters from Belgium and Poland would like to see the above mentioned game.
Without the exposure gained from competing at the world cup, teams like Belgium and Poland are doomed to fall further behind the top flight nations. Look at the Argies. They didn't qualify for the Olympics initially but now are favoured to do well at the World cup. There are some good quality nations playing in the 13-16 spots and they deserve a chance to improve and compete.
|
|
Liz
01-03-2002 6:48 pm
|
Report this post
|
Also I would like to remind that Spain finished second in the WCQ, where as Poland and Belgium finished 3rd and 4th respectively (in their encounter with Spain, Belgium even tied them at one each).
So if Spain is a team people would want to see, why would they not want to see "games such as Belgium vs. Poland"?!?
I have been fortunate enough to see the Poland vs. Belgium game for third place in Edinburgh, not being a supporter for any of the two, and I didn't find it any less appealing than the matches I saw at the Champions Trophy in November (featuring teams like Germany and Holland).
|
|
canadian
01-03-2002 7:58 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
I couldn't agree with Jakub more. As a young player in one of the less good nations its disappointing to know that if the current national team doesn't qualify for large events then it will effect the upcoming national teams. Thats not fair at all, and it hurts young players with ambition and dreams to know that there is pretty much no way that they can qualify for the World Cup, short of playing on the team for over a decade.
|
| | | |
