A similar quote that this writer’s late father always used was statistics are like a bikini, they show a lot but hide the bare essentials.”

The same day as we published “The Band Played On, But is It Time for The Lifeboats?” the International Hockey Federation (FIH) sent out a press release and published on its website a piece entititled “FIH Hockey World Cup 2026 breaks New Ground With Record Audiences.”

The article claimed that the current men’s and women’s world Cups have attracted record engagement across the FIH’s digital platforms.

They went on to say “As the tournament reaches the end of its second pool phase, World Cup content has already generated 106.4 million views across FIH platforms – and, importantly, is taking hockey far beyond its existing fanbase.”

They claim that Instagram has generated 66.7million views and Facebook 32.6million. However, as most people know Facebook’s recording of views is very loose. When a user watches a video for at least 3 seconds or less if the video is shorter, including auto-played clips Facebook counts these as views. Many who work in this space also claim that watching more than once adds to the number of views, but Facebook has failed to confirm or deny this.

Facebook is also very clever in that while you can see the total number of views, it does not show a public list of every specific user who watched a standard video. So how much can these figures be relied upon? The top Marketing companies do not rely on them at all.

A view on Instagram is counted when a user ‘actively taps, opens, or pauses on the post,’ rather than just scrolling past it in the feed.

It was also claimed by the FIH that they have had 4.5 million views on TikTok and 2.65 million on YouTube.

On TikTok a view is recorded the exact moment playback starts, this is said to be typically after about one second of viewing or a maximum of three seconds for longer videos. A view is registered almost immediately when a video begins to play even if you have not intentionally clicked on it! If a user loops or replays your video, each repeat view is added to the total count.

The Youtube result comes as no surprise with the World Cup matches not being shown in many countries around the World and many fans simply not prepared to purchase the Watch Hockey App. So they only place they can go to watch the highlights of any of the matches is via YouTube.

Many people are unaware that YouTube updated its public view system effective August 24, 2026. YouTube now counts a view from the moment a video begins playing from the very first frame. There is no longer a minimum length of time for it to be registered as a view; this used to be three minutes. To find out how long viewers stayed the creator will now have to go in and check “Engaged Views” to be able to obtain that data.

YouTube also would investigate views once they reached 300 and remove any views that were associated to bots to drive the figure up. Whether they are still doing that is not clear. What is clear is they have had to fall in line with their competitors as due to the uninitiated it was obvioulsly harming their business that other platforms were not bothered about the accuracy of their viewing data. As usual those who failed to do their homework becoming their easy prey.

YouTube has also now capped repeat views to a limit of four to five per day per IP address. There was a time when they actually did not count repeat views. Some feel that this could distort viewing figures, as with a livestream where someone may have to take a phone call or head to the bathroom, so are they a new viewer when they come back?

With other platforms counting every time someone’s finger slides over a clip on their phone it would appear that YouTube felt it had to change its reporting to match them.

However, while the FIH’s article is extremely self-congratulatory it fails to share the crucial information that many who are unfamiliar with this space would be unaware of.

This is nothing new across many sporting organisations. Sometimes those sending out such information actually lack the understanding themselves, however often these figures are shared to try and impress and promote a narrative that they want.

Hockey Australia’s former CEO shared some stats last year on the Pro League viewing figures on 7Plus revealing that this was all part of the “Hockey Australia Strategic Plan and the growth of our Sport.”

Realistically the viewing figures were poor. What the figures actually revealed was that Hockey Australia has a loyal fan base but it is a small one. When they watch games they stick with them, although the average viewing time was down on the previous year. Yet the viewer numbers were marginally up, but still averaged less than 10,000 per game, which shows why the World Cup has not been picked up by any broadcaster.

The FIH claim that “on Instagram alone more than 11 million non-followers have been reached.”

The FIH has 462,000 followers on Instagram. What this statement means is that 11 million people who are NOT followers clicked on their Instagram posts.

Having consulted a digital marketing expert with over 20 years experience in this space and having shared the FIH’s article with them their first reaction to this type of claim was ‘what percentage of non-followers were generated organically?’

In other words they just came to the sites without any prompts.

The next question was ‘do the FIH have a paid strategy to support these results?’ In other words did they pay for followers? This is nothing new, and many big organisations do this to make their figures look better than they really are. Remarkably there is no law stating that they must declare this. If there was a great many “influencers” would be out of business overnight.

Our expert said that ‘these results are great, but the key now is what is the strategy beyond this to leverage these non-followers? How is the FIH going to translate these figures into fans watching the the World Cup and the sport beyond that, and also play the game?’ This is probably the most important question, as if you do not have a plan around this what is the point of boasting about such figures?

Our expert felt that this plan should be made public, and if not key stakeholders need to be asking for a copy of the plan.

Of course one of the issues that is always going to restrict turning these non-followers into fans is having the sport aired behind a paywall or on an app that only those in the sport know about!

Which raises the question that many who read the story put out by the FIH have already asked, if people had been able to watch the World Cup and it was readily available in their home countries, would these figures be so high? The unavailability of the tournament according to our expert ‘would certainly have driven up online views for content.’

Which leads into the need to know more information about the non-followers. How does the FIH know that these ‘non-followers’ are not already hockey fans, but simply do not follow their social media accounts? Is it not realistic to think that many hockey fans without the tournament being aired in their home country have been scouring the internet for content, yet do not follow the FIH’s platforms.

So as our expert pointed out the FIH was very clever with its statement that said ‘the extraordinary high proportion of views and interactions coming from non-followers shows that the World Cup is attracting people who were not previously part of the FIH digital community.’ They are not clearly stating that they were not hockey fans, just that they were not followers on their digital platforms.

They continued that quote by saying that this was “demonstrating the way the presentation of hockey is evolving.’ This is extremely questionable. As stated previously had the tournament been available to watch in more countries would these figures have been close to these levels? With the lack of coverage they show that there is a hunger out there. The evolution is probably one that is not going to sit well with many if this is how it is to be in the long term.

Whether these non-followers are in fact already hockey fans is very important information, and should be shared so that we can actually determine whether the event has grown the attention of people with no connection already to the sport. Or is it simply those already with an interest already trying to find information? Those who do not “follow” the FIH’s digital platforms.

Our expert stated that this was a very ‘inward focussed’ approach, and that what would be more beneficial would be to step back from these figures and in their words explained, ‘today you never look at the figures you look at the trends and actions.’

They clarified what they meant by this by saying that if you have a digital presence you should know what your average view or engagement is per week, even per day. It is common for these to flat line, but what you need to know is when they go up or down, also what affects them going up and down. This will help you position yourself in context to other influences.

In the context of the World Cups, which posts about which teams are generating the most traction? Are that nations games being broadcast on free to air channels back home? Which day are you finding that you get the most engagement?

Our expert also asked whether these figures were linked to tangible measuring sticks. Are they helping drive subscriptions of the Watch Hockey App? Are people only purchasing the World Cup package? If so how are you going to get them to come back?

Are you monitoring player registrations in the coming seasons to see if this interest turns into more player registrations nationally? Again, compare to the countries where the World Cup was available to view to those where it was behind a paywall, and see if there were indicators as to the impact this had.

Compare these to the traditional upturn in registrations after a Word Cup tournament. Taking football as an example, participation numbers traditionally across the globe rise in the year before a World Cup and the two years after, but decline in the third year. Does Hockey have a similar trend? How much will not having the games available across hockey playing nations impact those figures this time around?

The article is in fact more of an advertorial justifying a strategy and claiming that it has worked, but as our expert said “How many views of the World Cup itself are being achieved, and can the FIH tell if these views came as a result of their social media channels? Surely the key is to have people watching games in full and not just highlights?”

They went onto say that if these results are indeed generated organically, how is hockey going to keep these people involved and following the sport once the World Cup is over? If there is no strategy in place to achieve this then what really has been gained?

Sadly, there are many in the Hockey fraternity who question the validity of these figures. Much of that stems from the claim when the ten year Watch Hockey app deal was signed with NAGRA, and it was promoted that this would service the “30 million players, fans, and officials worldwide.”

If one looks at the amount of short clips that have been produced and the number of views they are getting it is feasible that they are achieving the cumulative figures that have been promoted. Of course it would be interesting to know how many posts have been created on each platform and the average number of views per post, and how many are being watched by the same people, as that too would give a good insight into whether the sport has really managed to grow the following.

Of course some posts that garnered a large number of views were the posts featuring cricket legends Rahul Dravid and Steve Waugh, alongside Bollywood star Abhishek Bachchan. They were seen supporting India at their crucial FIH Hockey World Cup match against the Netherlands,

Needless to say Hockey saw this as chance to gain some views, – certainly the powers that be were lining up for photos – but in reality was the sport acting in the best interests of Hockey?

It transpires that the reason that they were in the Netherlands was for the launch of the European T20 Premier League (ETPL). Abhishek Bachchan is a co-founder of the ETPL, which aims to promote cricket in Europe. A sport that will no doubt compete against Hockey, certainly for sponsorship dollars.

T20 cricket is all about the crowd experience. Dutch Hockey is one of the best at creating a fantastic atmosphere at games, but could this league pull some fans away from the sport? After all so many hockey players have been very good cricketers and vice versa. Australian Jamie Dwyer who was pictured with the stars famously turned his back on cricket so that he could go to the Olympic Games. How many will share his view?

While on paper these figures look fantastic there are so many questions that need to be addressed to find out if they are actually as positive as they would appear, and the reporting of views by all platforms can be extremely deceiving, but surely the FIH is well aware of that? Hopefully key individuals will pursue this matter and gain more information and discover what the plan is moving forward to turn any non-hockey followers into long term supporters, or players. After all is that not the reason behind creating such content? To grow the game.

As Plato wrote, “a good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers.” It is time to extract that knowledge from these numbers.

The post Learning From Numbers first appeared on Not The Footy Show.

Is the same true of hockey at this point in time?

The FIH Men’s and Women’s World Cups are currently being held simultaneously in the Netherlands and Belgium and as you would expect the players are giving their all to progress within each tournament, but is the game itself sinking? If not sinking globally, then is it sinking in certain key markets?

The sport has two key events held within a four year cycle, that everyone will agree are the pinnacle of the sport, The FIH World Cup and the Olympic Games. To many the Olympic gold medal being the one that everyone wants. Meaning that being an Olympic Champion means more than being a World Champion. So keeping Olympic status as a sport is vital.

Hockey has been under a little bit of pressure since it was threatened with expulsion from the Olympic Games after 2012. Reports are mixed as to how close the sport actually came to being cut, but this was a wake-up call for the sport.

The IOC apparently has a system in which it’s Olympic Sports are placed in tiers according to their history within the Games and importance today. Not surprisingly Athletics and Swimming are in Tier one along with gymnastics. Depending on which source you go to Hockey fluctuates from tier four and five of the six tiers, modern Pentathlon, golf and rugby sevens consistently being placed in the lowest tier. These are the sports that will be under pressure if the IOC look to trim back the number of sports at the Olympic Games.

The Paris Olympic Games did not do Hockey any favours. The coverage was very poor. The white ball on a blue turf with the sun’s reflection off the turf made it almost impossible to see, and the cameras were too far away from the action, while the commentary was dour.

One of the other issues that continually comes up when new fans try and tune in during the Olympic Games is that the rules are hard to understand, and so many tune into something else. Every year the sport witnesses the rules being tinkered with but never is there a simplifying of the rules so that more people can comprehend the decisions being made by the umpires.

As has been suggested to for CEOs and the past three Presidents of the FIH they need to get players and coaches past and present, along with umpires and broadcasters in a room for at least two days and go through the rules one by one, and not only simplify them, but reduce the number that are open to interpretation, and ensure that they can be adopted at all levels of the game. The focus must be the whole of game, rather than purely the elite side of the game.

Leading into the London Olympic Games we featured the coach of France on Not the Footy Show and they stated how important qualification for the Olympic Games was to them. Only with Olympic qualification would the media in France give the game coverage. This of course had an impact on inspiring children to take up the game, and also attract sponsors.

Things are a little better in Australia but media interest only ramps up when the Olympic Games come around as Australia is expected to medal, yes, expected. The same is true of the Commonwealth Games. Otherwise coverage of the sport is minimal, as it competes with first tier sports for air time.

Technology has now worked against the sport. With broadcasters of the Olympic Games now offering multi-channel options so that you should be able to tune into the sports that you want to watch – In Australia this did not always work during the Paris Games – the number of people tuning into Hockey is reduced, as now in the main only the diehard fans will tune in.

The same problem is there with the current World Cup tournaments. In Australia only the Hockeyroos and Kookaburras games are being broadcast on Channel Seven. How can random sports fans get a perspective on the tournament without having all games being aired. Or even some introduction to the games or conversation at half-time? Viewers literally just get the game. Would this be the case with the Football, Rugby Union Rugby League or Netball World Cups?

If you want to see the other matches they are behind a paywall on the FIH’s third iteration of the Watch Hockey app. Once again only those who already follow the sport will go there to watch games, and in many cases reluctantly. It did not help that the platform fell over the first weekend of the tournament. How does that happen?

If you want to grow the sport it has to be visible. Stuck behind a paywall all you will do is reduce your following as there are simply too many other pay-per-view channels that families give priority too. As mentioned in the most recent Podcast, World Athletics make their events available via YouTube, because they want everyone to have access to them free of charge, and see that as the best way of growing participation and interest.

It is interesting to note that in the USA one of the reasons that the NFL is so strong is that unlike its main rivals Basketball and Baseball it has never gone behind a paywall.

The sad thing is it is not only in Australia where the tournament is not avialable to view, but also in Malaysia one of the hotbeds of Hockey in Asia.

Just last month Malaysians could watch every game of the FIFA World Cup, a tournament in which their country has never qualified for the finals. In fact two channels were broadcasting that event! Now none are broadcasting an event that their national men’s team were competing at.

Malaysia has twice hosted the FIH Men’s World Cup and the Women’s event once. They finished fourth in the 1975 men’s event as hosts.

Malaysia has annually hosted the Sultan Azlan Shah Cup which dates back to 1983. It also hosts one of the only internaional under 21 tournaments the Sultan of Johor Cup. It is a Hockey loving nation.

Yet the reason that there are no broadcasters showing the World Cup or Malaysia’s games at the World Cup is because the audience is no longer there. It is no longer commercially viable to the broadcasters.

This will have a massive impact on the sport. A sport’s visibility is part of its development. Sports grow when children can watch players they admire and idolise them. They then imagine themselves in that player’s shirt.

The rules have played a huge part in this drop off in interest and support. The physicality that has been allowed into the game has put the smaller Asian nations at a huge disadvantage. This is reflected in only one Asian male team being in the top ten teams in the world, India, and they have had to adapt their game and sacrifice some of their traditional play to be able to match the physicality. In the women’s game only China and India are in the top ten. Only two other Asian countries are in the top 20. While in the men Malaysia (14) Japan(17) and China (20) are the only teams in the Top 20.

There can be no doubt that the FIH Pro league has had a great deal to do with the lack of interest from TV stations. How many of those who signed up to air the FIH Pro League are still on board with Hockey?

The FIH promised them and the fans in the words of the then CEO Jason McCracken “a professional sport, making it a career choice for athletes who will be given the opportunity to perform in big, bold, packed and loud venues both in their homeland and overseas.”

The crowds were good for some games and poor for many and have declined over time. The lack of marketing, and the drawn out length of the league matches with games not being played each week meant that many lost track of what was happening, when games were being played and where. In fact many simply stopped watching at all.

The Pro league has had a direct impact on the Sultan Azlan Shah Cup as the FIH would not allow nations participating in the Pro League to play each other outside of the league, which meant that teams in the top ten in the world rarely participated at the Sultan Azlan Shah Cup. An event that many were frequently involved in. That in turn lowered the quality of the competition, and also meant that Malaysia along with many of the other nations were unable to pit themselves against the better nations to gauge where they stood.

Equally important to games being shown on TV is the access for budding coaches to study what those at international level are doing to affect change in games. Once again across Asia the development of coaching has been neglected with very few top quality coaches from these nations rising to the top.

Another factor that put the top teams off playing these nations was the new World Ranking system which sees higher ranked teams deducted world ranking points if they lose to a lower ranked nation. This is why many have said that World Ranking points should only be available in key tournaments.

The elitism of the FIH Pro League and the effects of it are now becoming obvious to those who are not part of it.It is such a long way from delivering the vision that Jason McCracken and the FIH promised, which was, “We strongly believe that this new competition will fuel the growth of our sport for many years to come, significantly increasing revenues for hockey.”

It is stifling growth and seeing the gap between those in the top six or seven and those outside that group widen. The results at the World Cup are reflecting this. It is also costing those participating a fotune to be a part of it. Costs that some countries realised before it started were unsustainable and some have only realised after being a part of it.

Australia allegedly did not carry out a full audit of whether entering the Pro League was going to be viable. They were also it has been claimed going to withdraw when New Zealand withdrew, only to change their minds at the eleventh hour. The cost of participation is one that all players in Australia have had to bear, as the fees to play locally have risen to try and offset the cost of participation.

Add to that the State bodies participation in Hockey One which replaced the Australian Hockey League; a mini version of the Pro League and the problem the sport faces are magnified.

The Australian Hockey League was always the competition on which final selections for the Kookaburras and Hockeyroos squads were based. Players had to play if they wished to be considered for the national teams. Now there are rumblings of discontent amongst many as the current national players do not have to play or only have to play a reduced number of games in Hockey One. Suddenly it is not an even playing field for all with international ambitions.

The problem here is that Hockey Australia under its former CEO encouraged its players to seek contracts overseas, so that they could earn a living from playing Hockey. Something that they are unable to do in Australia. However, Not The Footy Show has been advised that once a player makes that decision to play overseas, they no longer receive their AIS scholarship funding. As obviously they are no longer a part of the centralised program.

Ironically some of those who have been most vocal speaking out against the centralised program and being away from their home states and clubs are the ones who have opted to head overseas. This would tend to indicate that the centralised program is not the problem, neither is the location. Could it be the problem is in fact money? The lack of payment for being essentially a full time sportsperson.

So, Hockey now faces a problem that Australian football faced in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. Players based overseas and unable to be a part of the centralised training program full time. In football those playing in Europe paid their own way back to play for Australia; because the national Association at that time simply could not afford to fly them home for internationals; hence why some of these players have less caps than those who never played outside of Australia. Before the FIFA International breaks there was always a fight between club and country, as the clubs who were paying their wages did not want them to leave. This is now raising its head in Hockey.

Jay Stacy, one of the first Australians to head over and play in the Netherlands in the late 1990’s had agreed to play the season and return to Australia, but then when his club wanted him to prolong his stay he faced a dilemma. The Australian set up at the time took a hard line and said if you want to play for Australia you honour the agreement.

Alyson Annan suffered a similar fate at just 28 years of age. Annan was also playing in the Netherlands and had a commitment to her club, she had also started a degree in sports marketing the year before and was tied into her studies. She offered to return home for two weeks, but her offer was rejected.

In her biography “Beyond the Limits” the Australian Women’s coach at the time, David Bell is quoted as saying, “The difficulty was that she was playing a sport that was centralised in Australia. The ideal world for Alyson was to live in Holland and play for Australia, but when you try to put the dynamics of the group together, if you make allowances for one, you have five or six coming to you asking for the same thing.”

She did not play for Australia, and won the Player of the year in the Dutch League. Many still argue that it was Australia’s loss. Since that time the Hockeyroos have not won a World Cup or an Olympic medal.

Half a century later it is hard to take such a hard line when players have been encouraged to head overseas by those running the game, in order to be paid for their talent. As some have asked, is it morally right for a nation like Australia with so much history in the game to expect other nations to financially support their players?

Another question is can the coaches today take a line similar to that taken with Jay Stacy and Alyson Annan? Would, as some claim, it be a restraint of trade? Or does the coach have the right to select who they wish?

Just as with no free-to-air television coverage if you wish to grow the game these players need to be playing in Australia, even if it is only for the entire Hockey One season.

The centralised National players have been withdrawn from their club sides and many only play limited games, but they are somehow allowed to just return and play finals. This year the Hockeyroos have not been allowed to play for their clubs at all, what does that do in terms of inspiring the next generation? Many of the juniors at these clubs will not even know who these players are, as they never see them play. So they have no chance of being inspired.

With finals just around the corner, after the World Cup finishes there is already debate as to whether those international players who have not played for their clubs should be permitted to play. Some have suggested the clubs as a whole should stand united and not select these players. After all it is harsh on those who have contributed all season to miss out. Another argument that has some validity is how many extra fans will these players add to the gate? Sadly it will not be 100’s, so there is little to be gained for the sport.

Then some players who are part of clubs in the finals will opt to take a vacation after the World Cup rather than return and play, So, as one player suggested if they must play it should be all must play or none. Or should that be all should be available and it is up to the coach as to whether they select them? This is just another area which is proving divisive just like the availability in Hockey One. It needs to be addressed.

The other impact this has is it affects the crowd when the national team plays. There is not the connection between the club players and the national players that there used to be. Suddenly they are expected to support the team when the team – often through no fault of their own – are not supporting the clubs. While their team mates will be there many in the lower grades are missing.

The children are no longer begging their parents to take them to watch their idols because they no longer idolise the players because they cannot see them.

If you ever wanted proof that the game is no longer front of mind, it was there on the weekend. At games in the local competition it was interesting to eavesdrop on the conversations of those about to play. Despite both the Hockeyroos and the Kookaburras playing crucial games at the FIH World Cup, there was no conversation heard on the World Cup. Amongst the men the conversation was AFL and English Premier League. So if those who are playing the game are not engaged, the sport has clearly fallen a long way. Is that down to the visibility and promotion?

The Kookaburras were knocked out off the tournament while the Hockeyroos have progressed to the semi-finals and still have the hope of a medal. They took home bronze four years ago and will be looking to go better this time around. However, one has to point out that this was their only medal in a meaningful competition since silver in the 2018’s Champion’s Trophy and silver in 2019’s first edition of the FIH Pro League, when all nations were committed to the league. For the men, apart from a Silver at the Tokyo Olympics it has been an extremely lean time for a team that was at one time one of the strongest hockey nations.

Another question being asked in Australia is the same as one being asked in Asia where are all the coaches coming through?

For the first time ever Australia appointed a foreigner as a coach of a national team when South African Rhett Halkett was appointed coach of the Hockeyroos. Recently another South African was appointed the Women’s pathway coach.

Halkett may well be the perfect man for the job, but for a nation that is incredibly proud of homegrown talent this revealed a problem. Where are the next generation of International coaches in Australia, and are they up to that level yet? Clearly those making the key decisions felt that they weren’t. So what is being done to give talented coaches the opportunity to gain that knowledge and experience?

In Asia the same is true as overseas coaches are being given the key roles. Some bring a great deal to the table, some less and appear to be attracted to the money on offer, but while these individuals are being employed part of their remit has to be to assist in the development of local coaches to underpin their efforts and improve the nation in the long term.

There are talented coaches out there, many sign up for the various courses and diligently attend them, only to then be passed over by someone who has not made the same commitment, or does not have the same results to back up their claims. There is nothing more demoralising, and so credit should be given to those who still hang in there, for they are truly committed.

There can be no doubt that the sport in Australia has suffered poor management and a lack of awareness as to where it was heading internationally by the board and the CEO’s in at least the last two, possibly three Olympic cycles.

It is no comfort to see other nations in Asia suffering in a similar way. For ultimately it is the sport that is suffering the most.

It was dropped at the recent trimmed Commonwealth Games but is likely to return with India hosting the next games; that is unless Commonwealth Sport, who run the games deem that it was not missed. A decision that will be based on viewership figures and which broadcasters would purchase the rights.

There is an old saying ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it,’ but it would appear that the game is broken. it has hit an iceberg and is listing badly. it needs to be fixed or rebuilt.

There are so many factors that need addressing, with the rules being a priority. The rules have needed serious attention for at least ten years, probably longer. Why is this so hard? Are the right individuals overseeing this, and are they listening to what people in the game and those who aren’t are saying?

The calendar also is crucial with competitions domestically and internationally dovetailing, as young players are being burnt out especially with the Junior World Cup being played every two years. Many young players are not being given the chance to develop properly, and that is apparent in countries like Malaysia where few are ready to step up and replace the senior players. The senior players keep playing even though they are no longer at their peak, and the gap widens between them and those coming into the side. As a result the nation’s performances slip.

Teams can manage a dip as a side transitions but not a slide from which they fail to bounce back.

Does the sport have the right people in place to make the hard decisions. As one former international player stated ‘the game internationally is no better run than a club.’ That may be harsh, but the sentiment is clear. If you look at the administration of the game domestically and internationally you will meet people who are quick to tell you how much they ‘love the sport,’ but does that love blind them from making decisions that have to be made? Did that passion get them the jobs they are in, rather than their expertise?

One area where the Hockey administration in Australia dramatically dropped the ball in the past ten years was as women’s sport came the fore. Australian Women’s hockey had been a dominant team on the sporting landscape for decades, It had been successful on the international stage. They were the first team sport male or female tio win an Olympic team gold medal – based on the IOC’s definition of a team. Here was the perfect time to celebrate that, and have those heroes from the past talk up the sport and its benefits. Nothing happened, and now we see so many women’s sports have passed hockey in terms of profile, sponsorship, funding and participation.

Once again the question has to be asked were the right people at the helm at that time? They may have been nice people, and may have “loved the game” but ultimately they let have the game down.

Where to now? A new CEO is on the cards but will they be able to right the ship as the players continue to play on, or is it time for the lifeboats?

The post The Band Plays On, But Is It Time For the Lifeboats? first appeared on Not The Footy Show.

Has Glasgow saved the Commonwealth Games? As successful as the paired back Games were Brian shares his view on the Games future. Interestingly some non-Commonwealth nations took part.

Brian also discussed an obvious economic benefits which makes us refer back to our last guest TJ Rosandich whose comments were backed up between podcasts as the Western Australian State Government hosted the Calcio Italiano tournament, featuring Italian football giants AC Milan, Inter Milan, Juventus, and Palermo. The WA State Premier has claimed that “Tourism WA analysis found the festival generated an estimated global media value of more than $110 million. The other claim just a few days after the last game was played was that it generated $94 million to the economy. Should they be forced to justify these figures? Our interview would tend to indicate they couldn’t.

In this show Ashley asks fans and administrators to learn from the FIFA fiasco and look at their own governance. There are tell-tale signs as to whether your sport is being run properly. It is clear across many sports that voting can, and is manipulated. So do the voting rights need to be looked at? Should votes be given based on participation numbers or the fees paid by member nations? With many Confederations voting en bloc and determining the outcome of elections how can the power of confederations be reduced? As has been shown in football how important is the voice of the fans to effect change?

John and Ashley look at the Commonwealth Games and their relevancy, after the interview, before John asks can clubs offer waivers on contracts regarding injuries. Are players going to have to find their own insurance? Where would this leave clubs, individuals and the sports legally? Should the top leagues have to follow the English Premier League and set aside funds for former players?

If you don’t want to miss a post or a podcast subscribe to Not The Footy Show on our home page. Almost 2000 people have. All you need do is insert your email address and then you will receive an email update whenever a new post or podcast is posted. Rest assured we will not pass on your information! Also please feel free to share your thoughts and the Podcast.

Remember you can email us with suggestions for topics to be discussed. If there is a topic or a guest that you would like us to feature, please contact us.

Find all our podcasts on iTunes

The post NTFS#147 – A Look Back at the Paired Back Commonwealth Games, Lessons to be Learned From FIFA, and Are Waivers on Player Injuries Going to Change Sport in the Years Ahead? first appeared on Not The Footy Show.

At the level below the professional level there has been a big change, and one that has many who have been around sport a very long time scratching their heads as to what can be done.

Several years ago there was a player playing at the highest level in their state bemoaning the fact they were not selected for the professional side in their given sport. At the level they were training twice a week with games on the weekend. One day one of the coaches took this player aside and asked them why they believed that they were being overlooked. There were a range of answers given as they pointed out how in their mind they were a better player than several other players who had been given a professional contract.

The coach agreed that he believed this player was a better player, and then asked if that was the case why would they be selected and not this individual. The individual in question was at a loss for an answer.

The coach asked the player how much extra training they did outside of the club’s twice-a-week sessions. The player looked at the coach, eyes wide open as if to say,’what sort of question is that?’ The answer was none.

The coach pointed out that maybe the players that he believed were inferior worked harder. They were more committed to making the most of their talent. They were leaving nothing to chance. He pointed out that they were fitter and stronger. That maybe they had appreciated that to go to the next level they had to be a great deal fitter than they needed to be playing at this level, after all as a professional you had to train every day.

Finally the penny dropped. For a few weeks the player in question started to train on their own, but it did not last. A professional side never came calling.

That is one example of how dedicated you need to be if you want to play at the next level. It doe snot guarantee you will.

For decades across all sports if you wanted to play in the first team – even in amateur leagues – there was a commitment that you had to make. Not just in terms of fitness and attending training. You had to commit to being available for the whole season barring injury.

When in Australia all the shops closed at lunchtime on a Saturday there were few excuses. Now with many jobs putting greater demands on individuals provate lives, sometimes players are unavailable due to work.

That is understood, and accepted by coaches and team mates.

One player who found themselves in such a position where they had to work every third week, made themselves unavailable for the first team, as they felt it was unfair that once they were available they were selected. It was also unfair on those who were promoted.

So why are so many players today playing at te highest level no longer committed to their team and their club for the whole season?

Today we witness players going off on holiday during the season, taking a weekend off for a Bucks night when there are games, and some even participating in other sporting events. We are not talking about State representative teams where it is an honour to be selected, but tournaments in which they choose to play.

To show how bad things have become we have even had first team coaches going off on holiday during the season, because it is school holidays! What example does that set your players?

Many clubs are at a loss as to what to do to try and stop this, as many do not pay their first team players. If they did they could simply not pay them. Many coaches have stated they would like to leave the player in the second team, but when they lose players to injury, to youth state competitions or other players going on holiday, they concede that they have to play the returning players to remain competitive.

There is no doubt that this trend has become far more prevalent in the last ten years. Some have said that it has become the norm since the Covid pandemic.

Others who have been around sport for a long time feel that it is a result of the way many clubs run their junior teams.

The belief here was that once again parents are not made to commit their child for the season and frequently they are unavailable due to family events. A failure by the parent to understand what it means to be a part of a team and a club. That there are responsibilities, and that commitment is a crucial part of a child’s learning. It teaches them what it means to be a part of a community, and also that once you commit to something you see it through, as you owe it to those around you.

Another issue that was raised was that many of these same parents have their child play and as soon as the game is over it is in the car and off they go. The child missing out on understanding what it means to be a part of a club. Never watching the first team play and having aspirations to make it to that level one day.

Going to training twice a week, playing and leaving straight after the game, and missing a few games here and there has them growing up believing that this is how it works. This is normal behaviour. They clearly never appreciate the work that goes on behind the scenes to ensure that they have a team to play for and kit to wear; so too do their parents.

The problem with such behaviours is that they erode the quality of the competitions. They also result in the talent pool from which the professional sides recruit diminishing. To make matters worse, the clubs do not stand as one to try and raise the bar back to where it was. Many simply accept such behaviours as long as they parents pay the fees each season.

Yet at these clubs there are a diminishing number of people who are committed to keeping them going. Volunteers that give up hours each week not just during the season but also in the off-season to keep things going. They are the epitome of commitment. Do they deserve more from those playing the game?

Sadly, it would appear that commitment no longer means what it used to. The days when players who knew they would not be available all season would drop down and play in the twos, and only step up if required. These individuals understood what it meant to be a part of a club, and to put the interests of the team and the club as a whole ahead of themselves.

The fact that coaches are now going on holiday during the season shows that there is a huge problem in terms of understanding and respect for the club that has trusted them to take on such a role. Any club that is happy to accept such behaviours from coaches in their top teams will eventually pay a price. Certain standards have to be maintained or everything starts to crumble.

Maybe clubs need to bring in an expected code of conduct for all players and parents. The message is clear something has to change across many sports to raise the bar in terms of what is the minimum expected commitment for those aspiring to play in the top side, and equally those in junior sides, so that they learn the culture expected in club sport and also the standards expected of them.

The post Missing Commitment first appeared on Not The Footy Show.

The same is true of National Associations. Here there is a depressing merry-go-round of CEO’s who step into a sport for one Olympic cycle or a little longer and then move on. Few take the time to understand the sport, its history and what it means to its followers and players. They bandy around the word “family,” but frequently all we see is as a an old-fashioned family in which the head of the family makes all the calls and is never wrong. This is not a nurturing environment. .

Of course this is not always the case, as some club owners and some administrators are very aware of what their brand is; however some are only aware of that brand in terms of its earning capacity and not what it represents.

Most sports fans will tell you that the one thing that you should never do is change the colours that your team plays in, unless you have a very valid reason.

One of the most iconic football shirts in the world belongs to Brazil.Yet that famous shirt was born out of what the nation saw as a disaster.

Heading into the last game of the 1950 FIFA World Cup all Brazil needed to be crowned Champions was a draw against neighbours Uruguay. The unheard of happened, they lost 2-1 at the Maracanã Stadium in front of nearly 200,000 fans, most of whom were Brazilians.

They would never play again in a major tournament in the white strip that they wore that day again. A competition was held in the newspaper Correio da Manhãto for a new kit for the national team.

A 19-year-old local illustrator named Aldyr Garcia Schlee submitted the winning design which featured a yellow shirt with green trim, blue shorts, and white socks. A strip that is now recognised and respected the World over.

Leeds United in England used to play in a kit with blue and yellow stripes before switching to their now famous All White kit when Don Revie took over as Manager in 1961. His reasoning was that he wanted the team to look like the dominant Spanish side Real Madrid. He wanted them to project an image of “elegance and success.” Under Revie they were capable of some sublime football and were certainly dominant.

Many other sporting clubs have changed their colours and some have been for good reasons and some for more bizarre reasons. Norwich City being a case in point. The club originally played in blue and white, but changed to yellow and green in 1907 after the club president took up canary breeding! Some claim that the switch related to the area, which was known for the breeding of canaries.

A recent attempt to change Cardiff City’s, – known as the Bluebirds – strip to red in 2012 when new owners came in was short-lived, reverting back to blue in 2015 after huge protests by fans.

There has been a huge amount of press been given to the news that India will be wearing a change of colour at the FIH Hockey World Cup which starts this month. Rather than playing in a blue or a white strip which has been the tradition for many years it was announced that the famous blue strip was gone, and would be replaced by a saffron/orange coloured shirt.

Traditionalists vented their feelings on social media. The Indian press lapped it up, and now there is a witch hunt to find out who made the decision.

The President of Hockey India, Dilip Tirkey has, it was reported, sought an explanation as to why this change has happened, and who authorised it. He also it was claimed had asked for details on which players and team staff were consulted. In addition documentary evidence of any testing that was conducted before the kit change was introduced.

Former India International and coach Harendra Singh came out on social media soon after the news broke offering a possible explanation as to why the change had been made. He wrote, “There is strong evidence from sports vision, perceptual psychology, and ecological optics that team identification becomes more difficult when the uniform color has low visual contrast with the background. {Pitch Colour}.”

He went n to say “A player wearing dark blue on a dark blue turf has reduced visual contrast. During fast transitions, this can delay passing decisions, as Hockey is a high-speed and high-intensity game, Teammates require slightly more time to recognize the player.”

It was a very detailed and scientific explanation and one felt that he was trying to calm the waters which were becoming extremely turbulent amongst fans and former players who could not accept that India would be playing in a World Cup and not wearing their famous blue shirts.

Head coach Craig Fulton gave an interesting response when questioned about the change by ANI News India when he said “I don’t want to get too complicated with it, it was a technical thing, at the same time we’re preparing for a World Cup, there have been other jerseys played in different tournaments, even Indian cricket played in orange in one tournament, but i think our focus is if it can help by 1%, you know from a technical point of view we’ll really try and do it to help our team perform and win and at the same time we’ve got a great opportunity in a new strip, and the guys are very excited about it.”

While appearing to try and throw water on the issue he also implied that he was involved in the process, although it was still unclear as to whether this was the case or not.

Interestingly it was around the year 2014, another World Cup year that the discussion of India playing in a Saffron/orange strip was raised. On this occasion a poll was held amongst the players who unanimously voted to stay with the traditional blue shirt.

In fact some fans even raised the introduction of the blue turf as another devious scheme by the Europeans to suppress the Indians!

No doubt the backlash is a result of what that blue shirt means. It is a privilege and an honour to wear that shirt even once. Knowing the greats who have gone before it would carry an understandable sense of pride to be one of only a select group to not only wear the shirt, but walk out onto the field of play and compete in it.

To the fans it is revered. It is an item of immense national pride and understandably so, as it was in those blue shirts that India dominated the sport and defeated their Colonial masters.

Just as the baggy green cap is the ultimate prize in cricket in Australia. As was clear when limited overs specialist Aaron Finch despite playing 93 One Day Internationals and 42 T20 Internationals was finally rewarded with selection for a test match, and earned the famous baggy green cap. His Test career would last just five matches but publicly stated that he had now fulfilled a dream he had held since playing in the backyard as a child. Showing that Test cricket meant so much more than the shortened versions of the game, as it gave him the chance to wear that famous cap.

The same would apply to many nations, such as the All Black jersey in New Zealand and the Springboks one in South Africa. Even shifting that famous emblem from the left side of the chest to the right caused ructions in rugby in South Africa.

The reasons the public become upset is because dreams are built around those national shirts.There is a history and a legacy attached to national colours that some fail to grasp. Nations are invested in the shirt and the team, as they are representative of the people on the world stage. Those colours belong to the nation. That is why you will rarely see national teams change their colours, it is also why this decision in India has upset so many.

As stated the national team, and its colours like the national flag are supposed to represent everyone within a nation. They are symbols that should bring everyone together. They have the power to unite.

In Australia and many other nations we see Governments leveraging sport to try and push social messaging. If the sport promotes a certain social message it receives money.

One of the messages that many sports have tried to push is that they are “inclusive.” That all are welcome. If you watch the national team play you will witness people from many different walks of life come together to support that team, many recent immigrants are part of that because they are grateful for the opportunity given to them by their new country. It is a way in which they feel a part of that new country.

The Australian Hockey team has opted to have their alternate strip be one with an indigenous theme. This has been the case since 2023. In True Colours we spoke to Tony Shaw the Director of Indigenous Services Australia who has worked with many sporting associations in Australia educating them about Aboriginal beliefs and culture. He has worked previously with the Australian Men’s Hockey team, as well as the AFL Players Association (AFLPA), the Cathy Freeman Foundation and AFL Clubs such as the West Coast Eagles, Fremantle Dockers, Port Adelaide and Collingwood.

The point he made at the time was, “A jersey design can be powerful, but only if people understand the meaning behind it. If the story and symbols aren’t being explained properly, especially to overseas audiences, then the message gets lost. Eight Aboriginal players in more than a hundred years tells us the system hasn’t worked. It’s time for more action, more investment, and a genuine effort to make the sport more accessible to our communities,” 

In February of this year Hockey Australia announced that sports manufacturer Kookaburra would design a new kit for the Men’s and Women’s national teams. The Press release stated that “Athletes from across the Kookaburras, Hockeyroos and national pathway programs have been directly involved in the design process.”

It went on to state that “Player feedback was central to the development of the 2026 kits, with athletes calling for a strong return to Australia’s traditional green and gold across both Home and Away uniforms. Players were keen to reinforce the visual connection between the men’s and women’s programs on and off the field, while maintaining the storytelling elements that reflect hockey’s culture and pathways.”

Once again backing up the belief that players – rather than athletes – prefer to wear a traditional shirt that has historical significance and meaning.

At the time of the announcement it was also revealed that “The kits also feature a bespoke Indigenous design created by Kevin Bynder, in collaboration with Nova Peris, telling the story of Australian hockey from grassroots to the highest level. Circular motifs represent the Hockeyroos and Kookaburras, surrounded by symbols of players and hockey sticks, while smaller circles acknowledge clubs and junior participants. Pathways within the artwork illustrate the journey from junior hockey to national representation, completed by a kangaroo for the Hockeyroos and a kookaburra for the men’s program. The design is grounded in Country through the depiction of the Darling Ranges as the Waagyl (Rainbow Serpent), a creator spirit in Noongar culture, reinforcing connection, continuity and pride.”

While this is commendable it causes an issue among the very communities that it is aiming to promote, something that was highlighted to us by an Aboriginal individual.

There are over 250 Aboriginal nations or language groups in Australia today. This is mapped out by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies.

There are up to 600 individual tribal groups based on specific traditional lands (Country) and laws.

At one time Australia is believed to have had over 250 distinct languages and a further 800 dialects. Today, it is estimated that roughly only 120 to 150 of these languages are still actively spoken, but the vast majority are critically endangered and many of these are only spoken by older generations. One source has claimed that there are only 45 languages now actively in daily use.

In many of these languages simple words can carry a completely different meaning in another. So too stories can have very different meanings. As was pointed out to us it makes it very hard to try and link all of these mobs with one theme. The only thing that is truly inclusive thing we were told is the Aboriginal flag, or believe it or not the Australian flag.So adopting the motifs of one mob excludes the others.

Surely the flag and the nation’s colours worn by national teams should be all that is required to represent the rainbow nation made up of people from many different cultures and countries, different beliefs and religions? Kowtowing to the whims of politicians is always a dangerous path to tread, for as soon as you have toadied up to one group another takes power.

In a sporting environment the key to success is to know your history. Know the importance a national shirt, or for that matter what the colours worn by a club mean to those who played in the past, who are currently playing and those who aspire to play.

The answers will reveal that some things should not be tampered with under any circumstances. For there can be no greater legacy than the shirt of a national team.

The post Colour Blind first appeared on Not The Footy Show.

Our guest on this show is a man who has worked in sports for over 47 years and has lectured on many aspects of sport at the US Sports University – formerly the United States Sports Academy – including the area of Sports Finance. T.J. Rosandich looks at this aspect of sport and how in fact many major events end up costing money rather than making money. We are sure that you will find what he has to say extremely interesting.

John has us turn our attention to the recent FIFA World Cup that has just concluded, and Ashley looks briefly at the change in goalkeeper techniques and teh number if Africans gracing the tournament playing for other nations. John then raises the issue of the conspiracy theories that ran throughout the tournament and the “hatred of the VAR.”

After our conversation with TJ, John and Ashley discuss some of the issues raised and how Western Australian Tourism figures leaked were claiming that for every dollar spent on bringing events, including sporting events to the state, these events would return $2.80. Hopefully after listening to this interview someone asks the Government to show how they came to that figure.

If you don’t want to miss a post or a podcast subscribe to Not The Footy Show on our home page. Almost 2000 people have. All you need do is insert your email address and then you will receive an email update whenever a new post or podcast is posted. Rest assured we will not pass on your information! Also please feel free to share your thoughts and the Podcast.

Remember you can email us with suggestions for topics to be discussed. If there is a topic or a guest that you would like us to feature, please contact us.

Find all our podcasts on iTunes

The post NTFS#146 – Are There Really Profits to be Made From Hosting Sporting Events? Also a Look Back at the FIFA World Cup, and a Question for State Politicians. first appeared on Not The Footy Show.

No matter what area of life you look at there will always be talented people. Some look to use that talent, others choose not to, while some simply lack the courage to use it. Then there are those who will say they were never given the opportunity to use it.

Then there are those who choose not to select talented players. It was the great Australian cricketer Keith Miller who said of Laurie Nash “the greatest waste of talent in Australian cricket history.” Nash was an uncompromising fast bowler who loved to dig the ball in short. In 1932 playing for Tasmania against the touring South Africans in Hobart Nash was on a hat-trick. Everyone was trying to think what he would bowl, a yorker being the expected delivery. Nash bowled a bouncer, and broke Eric Dalton’s jaw!

In the 1936/37 Ashes series, – the first after Bodyline when the selectors were not game to pick Nash, – he was selected for the final test despite England captain Gubby Allen trying to stop his selection. He would only play two Tests in his career and took ten wickets at an average of 12.8. It is believed Bradman wanted him on the 1938 tour of England but the selectors would not pick him.

Apart from being an outstanding cricketer and Aussie Rules player Nash knew he was good, as was reflected when he was asked who was the best player he had seen in that sport, he replied, “I see him every morning when I look in the mirror.”

So many talented players have a belief that others lack. That belief in themselves has proven troublesome to selectors and managers over time, but it is important that they learn to manage these players and not ignore them or try and suppress their ability.

So, to say that someone has wasted talent can be a harsh criticism to make, especially in today’s world where natural talent in many sports is seen as being ‘an individual,’ and these natural attributes are coached out of individuals; hence the enjoyment for many gifted players diminishes. They either are discarded branded “not a team plauyer,” walk away or simply fail to perform to their capabilities.

Whenever you hear of coaches trying to suppress natural talent you hope that parents or others around that individual will remind them of the words of Benjamin Franklin who said “Hide not your talents. They for use were made. What’s a sundial in the shade?” Of course many today woul;d have no idea what a sundial is, let alone what it was used for!

Even if you have talent for something it will only carry you so far. It was the former president of the United States of America Calvin Coolidge who said that “nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not. Nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.” He went on to say “persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.”

This has been proven time and time again, especially in sport where players who may not have been as talented as others through hard work, persistence and determination have ended up achieving far more.

That having been said it is terribly sad when you see young players with ability and promise not fulfil that promise, and frequently through no fault of their own.

Ten years ago there were two young footballers who clearly had talent and ability. Both should have gone on to play at a higher level. Both had the passion and commitment, but both were told that they were not strong enough for the step up. Sadly, what the coaches who made that assessment failed to explain was how they could become stronger when in possession of the ball. Both players, who were in their late teens, one may have been 20, failed to ask how they should gain strength. Instead they simply went to a gym and told the trainer they wanted to get stronger. The trainer it has been claimed did not ask why they wanted to get stronger, and simply gave them a program that saw both bulk up their upper body and thighs in terms of muscle. Yet that bulking up took away from one a quick turn of pace, and the other also lost a yard or two of pace that used to see them glide past players. Suddenly two of the attributes that had made them the players they were had gone. They were now never going to make it to the next level and make a career in the sport.

In May 2013 nineteen year old Sam Chalmers the son of former Scottish international rugby union fly half Craig, tested positive to anabolic steroids when on Scotland Under-20s duty. He was suspended for two years after pleading guilty.

On his return to rugby after serving his suspension Sam Chalmers told the Guardian ““I have been stupid, naive and impressionable and would urge other young players not to give in to the constant pressure to be bigger in the manner that I did,”

Chalmers was in the gym trying to bulk up when he was offered supplements by others at the gym, and foolishly took them without checking what they contained. The supplement market has become a huge market for budding sports stars. At the time of his suspension Chalmers said in a statement “After my experience, I would certainly encourage young players to seek out the correct advice from the right places before taking any kind of supplement or product.”

Chalmers is not alone in trying to take a short cut, in South Africa where a professional rugby contract is seen as life-changing, and a chance to earn a fantastic wage as well as give a player an opportunity overseas, many are taking supplements, but worse some are taking steroids while at school and there have even been stories of parents injecting their own children with them.

A week ago this writer witnessed a similar sitiuation to the two footballers with another player who had excelled at under 21 level. They had been recognised as a talent and were put into a State Institute of Sport program. Here they were given a training program that changed their natural body shape. They too built up muscle, they became physically solid and strong. Yet again while developing their body strength they too had lost the turn of pace that took them away from a player. Yes, once they got going they still were quick, but they were no longer able to pull away from the opposition in the first two metres.

After watching the game and being saddened by what I had witnessed this writer went away and looked at who was in charge of the strength and conditioning program that had allowed this to happen. Incredibly the person in this role had obatined auch a position straight out of University with only three roles assisting top flights sports while at University. What practical knowledge did they have to land such an important role? These are the athletes of the future, they deserve the very best in terms of supprt for these young players to fulfil their potential. Did they land this role because the salary was too low to attract the best and most experienced people to help these athletes achieve?

It is extremely troubling to know that someone with so little experience has such an important role. Yet this is commonplace in sport today where inexperienced individuals are given roles that they simply should not have. However, this one has the potential to shatter dreams and careers. The mental fall out does not even bear thinking about.

It begs the question what has happened to Australian sport? A question that many were asking and predicting ten years ago when they started to witness the off field expertise heading overseas.

Are these situations arising now because the sports themselves can no longer pay the top dollar that those with the expertise are worth? Is that why we are seeing lesser qualified individuals taking up important roles across so many sports? Roles that are often above their level of competence.

Gone are the days where the AIS (Australian Institute of Sport) or their State counterparts have the best specialists in the key support fields. Sadly twenty years ago we saw the individual sports wanting to have their own experts, rather than relying on the institute staff, then they wanted an expert for each team. Not surprisingly the quality became diluted and performances suffered.

Then there is the role of the High Performance Director it has been assumed is one in which the skills are transferrable. That may be the case at a certain level of competition but at the very highest level it is very clear that it is not. How can such individuals who have worked for ten years or more with athletes competing in individual events have the knowledge required for a different sport and a team-based one?

The same question has been asked of some strength and conditioning coaches.

This puts those who do the hiring of these experts under the microscope, the board and often the CEO. How much knowledge and experience do they have today to make the right decisions, and is it comparable to those who came before them?

There are many who talk about keeping the love of playing alive. The fearlessness of youth, and the bravado with which each game is approached in a life that is measured in seasons not matches, and the belief that next season will always be better. At the highest level is not life now measured on a game to game basis?

It was interesting to read recently how in England where the next generation of talent coming through is so often the focus, especially in football, it was claimed that the sport has in fact marginalised the youth. The claim was that in the 1990’s more than a quarter of those going to watch football in the four professional leagues were younger than 25. The dawn and cost of all seater stadia saw the prices rise across the country, and by 2009 the average age of fans was now 41. Now the youth simply cannot afford to go.

There would be many who grew up in England who will remember areas set aside for kids, The Boy’s section. Even in the National Soccer League in Australia, Perth Glory had a section in front of the shed for children, and father’s would drop off their children in that area and go and join the throng in the shed. Incredibly some clubs today have no reduced prices for children. Parents must buy a family pass.

It would appear gone are the days when twelve year old boys or girls would go to the game on their own with pocket money given by their parents for their entry, some snack and the bus fare home. The youth are virtually forgotten today at live games. So where will they get their inspiration?

To be a mascot was a huge thing back in the day as there was only ever one per game. After Euro 2000 suddenly every player from each side had a mascot that they walked onto the field of play with.

Once again it was disheartening to hear that today there are often conditions attached to such opportunities. Some clubs insist that for a child to be chosen they must be a fully paid up member of the club’s official supporters club. English Premier League Clubs it has been reported now charge around UKL300 for the honour, and one club offered a discount price of UKL150, but it did not include a ticket to the game!

Needless to say that these prices exclude many from ever having that opportunity, Instead of using this opportunity to inspire, and go to schools and offer the privilege for free, clubs have turned it into revenue raising.

The world has clearly changed, and those at both ends of the sporing spectrum it is fair to say are often struggling to find common ground. While yesteryear attention was focussed on skill and technique where learning and standards were passed down to each generation, today the focus is more on fitness, athleticism and formations.

The FIFA World Cup that has just finished was not a great advertisement when it comes to standards of behaviour. This is because those at the top failt to adhere to their own rules, and the laws of the game that exist are not applied. The recent FIFA World Cup was a glowing example of this.

While many of the older generation view the players as having ‘gone soft’ they fail to understand that rightly or wrongly the ‘character-building’ methods and communication of the past is seen as bullying today. As has been witnessed with legal cases being mounted by some parents on behalf of their children against professional clubs coaching staff.

There are plenty who are not fans of the academy systems cropping up in all sports around the world. Ordinary community clubs give young players the opportunity, and as soon as they show a modicum of talent they are snatched away by a professional club.

In 2012 as a result of the belief that there had been a drop in standards by the England National football team, along with a declining number of homegrown players getting valuable match time in the English Premier League The Premier Leagues Elite Player Performance Plan (EPPP) was created. This saw 13,000 talented youngsters aged from 9-18 placed into four groups. From age 11-16 there is full time education for these children and from 16-18 further education to give these young people skills and qualifications away from football.

The clubs are now spending between UKL2-5M a year on these academies and these young players. The plus, as England’s recent World Cup performance will show is that the standards have improved, and in 2024 English players had more game time in the Premier league than they had had for 17 years!

The downside that is common with all of these type of ventures in sport is that people see opportunities to benefit themselves. It has been reported that there are now three times as many coaches in the EPPP as there were when it was set up, which now has people asking is it sustainable. Not only that, but whether all of these coaches are in fact benefitting those they are there to help improve. Are they qualified for that role?

Coaching too has shifted to a worldwide trend of telling players to limit their guile and skill rather than teaching a young player when to use it to maximum effect. The edict is not to make mistakes. A player following their natural instincts is seen to be risky. They must conform to these wishes or they are branded ‘trouble makers’ and will be dropped for someone who will conform.

Australia, which used to lead the world in so many sports has fallen into this same trap. Here is a country that has historically stuck two fingers up at conformity but it is now trying to enforce such behaviour.

This conformity comes not only in behaviour and playing habits, but also physical attributes, hence the pressure on players to become “stronger.” Size has also become a big factor, although one wonders why? Just think of Messi and Maradona, neither tall men but huge in stature within the game in terms of ability. It is interesting to note that both Harry Kane and Declan Rice who starred for England at the recent World Cup were dropped from the academy system for being too small! Clearly they both proved those decision-makers wrong.

There are still question marks over the academy system in terms of them actually producing talent, but Australia in some sports has blindly followed suit. If there are not academies there are Development Squads. Why is Australia suddenly following where it used to lead? Is this purely because they acknowledge the possible revenue that can be generated?

As has been quoted many times on this site, in his book “No Hunger in Paradise” Michael Calvin wrote that 98 percent of players within the academy system at 16 were not playing in the top five leagues in England by the time they were 18. One statistic revealed that 70% of former top tier academy players was not given a professional contract in the English Premier League, or with an English Football League club. So why stick with such a system if the returns are not there? Why follow a system that is not giving you the results you need?

This proves again that being chosen at such a young age is no guarantee of success at the highest level. Some will tell you that who the coach is will play a huge part in how far you go. With so many coaches involved, including strength and conditioning coaches this can now become a minefield to navigate for a young talented individual who just wants to play.

When they become a part of an academy, an Institute of Sport or a High Performance Program these young players understandably believe that they are now being helped by the best there is. Sadly that is not always the case.

Not surprisingly with so many players being released before they have come close to their dream the focus in England shifted to look at how these players were treated when they were let go. In a few words, ‘they were on their own.’ They were left to sort it out on their own. Football has been heavily criticised over this issue.

The same again is happening in Australia. In Football, players join A-League clubs NPL sides because they are sold a dream, that if they want to play in the A-League they must be a part of that youth system. Very few come through that system and make it to establish a regular place in the A-League. What care is given to those discarded?

The same is true of players selected in development squads in other sports, or who have played at under 21 level internationally, but cannot break into a senior squad. When a team has a centralised program with a contracted squad, it becomes incredibly hard for these players despite their form to break into the national team. I

s it any wonder so many become demoralised? Also does such a system guarantee that the best players are being picked at the time, or the most in form? Restricting selection to one group over a long period of time, may well be another reason why results for some teams who have adopted such a system have dropped off.

As one sports psychologist revealed for those dropped at this stage in their sporting career or left out “many suffer high levels of Psychological distress which can last a long time.”

So how many sports have open dialogue with these players as to where they are in their career, what they ned to work on. Even that they are at risk of being dropped from the program before it happens. Communication is so important, yet so many coaches put the onus back on the player and claim it us up to them to ask what they need to do. Yet this generation is not one that is comfortable asking such questions.

There has been a great deal of criticism levelled at the lack of a duty of care by the English Football clubs with these adolescent players, which appears to be justified. The argument that you have to be mentally tough to make it to the top does not carry much weight today. Yes, you do, but surely you also have a responsibility to nurture and educate those who may not have the skills or initially that mental toughness to get to that level?

In Australia across many sports there are players with bucketloads of ability, who do have the mental toughness, but what they won’t do is suppress their natural talent, for there is no enjoyment and no challenge in doing that. Like Laurie Nash they simply want to play, compete and win.

Most of us like a challenge as it helps build our own belief and self esteem. Most coaches will tell you that they see their role as a challenge trying to win key tournaments, so why are they so myopic when it comes to seeing what players with natural ability and vision need to help bring about that success? Trying to turn an athlete into a quality player in a sport is proving to be misguided, how about trying to make the talented players better athletes?

Is this the preferred option because it guarantees job security and there will be less friction? No sports fan wants to believe that.

However, it is clear that Australia needs to have a shift in the way it develops its top sportspeople. It needs to abandon the desire to create obedient, reliable, automatons and welcome back those who reflect the Australian psyche. Who will stand up when needed for their team mates, and will do what is required in that moment; often thumbing their nose at the powers that be.

The post Talent Management first appeared on Not The Footy Show.

Over the years in many sports fans have witnessed the attributes that have been instilled in many by their parents and grandparents benefiting Australian national teams. Attributes, such as skill, tenacity, physicality, work ethic, self belief, and one that has been used for decades a never-say-die attitude.

Some will tell you that at the time of the First world War the Australian troops were some of the most resourceful, loyal, and bravest men they came across. They would always be there for their mate. The one other characteristic that was there as well was a lack of respect for authority. Australians enjoy nothing more than proving people in authority wrong.

As one former Test cricketer wrote in his autobiography when doing his national service he discovered what bad losers Australians could be. How once knocked out of a tournament they expected to win, they simply packed up and left. Others have shared similar tales.

Is this the result of arrogance or self belief? To many across the world it is perceived as being the former, when the truth is that it is far more likely to be the latter, for Australians rarely fear anyone when it comes to competing in sport, and their success across a great many sports for a relatively small population is something to be proud of.

Yet is modern day Australia losing many of the attributes that enabled them to achieve such results?

The Socceroos have always been a team that has reflected what can be achieved when individuals from different cultural backgrounds with different attributes come together with a common cause.

While many are handing out plaudits to the modern generation of players serious thought should be given to the team that qualified for the 1974 edition of the FIFA World Cup. This edition of the World Cup Finals saw only 16 of the best teams in the world compete. So for Australia to be there amongst the best in the world was a huge achievement, and they proved many who thought they would be whipping boys wrong.

They may have lost their opening game to East Gemany 2-0 but this was far from a disgrace. In their second game they took on the host nation and eventual winners West Germany and lost 3-0, but they frustrated their opponents so much that the crowd not only booed the hosts, but the great Franz Beckenbauer bared his backside at the home fans at the end of the game to let them know how he felt!

In their final game they drew 0-0 with Chile.

There were no World Rankings in FIFA back in 1974 so it is hard to compare how far down the rankings Australia were at that time, but Haiti, Zaire and the Socceroos were the least respected of the other nations competing.

It took Australia until 2006 to qualify for a second World Cup Finals, again in Germany; now a unified country. This time around there were 32 teams competing.

Since 2006 Australia has qualified for every World Cup Finals that has been held, including this year in the USA when the tournament expanded to 48 teams. Some have questioned whether this team would have made it to the USA had it still been just 32 teams, that we will never know.

What has been interesting to watch is the evolution of the Socceroos over the past 25 years.

When football was shut down and rebooted there was clearly a new energy surrounding the game. The A-League was being supported by a marketing campaign that instilled excitement. There was ambition too with the appointment of respected Dutch coach Guus Hiddink to the Socceroos.

The game had the chance to ride the wave of enthusiasm that swept Australia as it qualified for its first World Cup Finals in 32 years. Sadly though there was little or no forward planning, just as there had been none in 1974. The sport failed to capitalise on the success of the “Golden generation” who progressed to the round of 16.

To make matters worse for the sport the money generated by their success was not re-invested into the game, it was blown on bonuses to players and coaching staff, as well as paying Qantas for the lease of an aircraft to fly the team to and from Uruguay.

Football Australia boasted about how much money the FIFA Women’s World Cup generated in 2023, but again the sport has seen little evidence of that money being reinvested into the game to help bring the next generation through.

Australia’s final ranking at the end of the 2026 FIFA World Cup is 22nd. Which means that the team received USD2.5M as “Preparation money’ to contribute toward training camps, travel, and logistics prior to the World Cup starting. They received a further USD10M for qualifying, and a further $12M for making it to the round of 32. So a total of USD22M from the tournament.

Having played four games at the World Cup the squad of 26 should have accounted for just over AUD2M in wages. With 32 support staff it would be good to know how many were contracted or salaried, and also whether there were any bonuses to be paid to them for the Socceroos getting out of the group stage, and if so how much.

With Football Australia announcing a loss of AUD15.3 M before the World Cup Finals it would appear that there is going to be very little left over to reinvest in the game.

There have been many who while proud of the national team and their endeavours have questioned whether the Socceroos have lost some of the qualities that were often taken for granted. This should not be a surprise as the modern day player in many sports players are coached to limit the attributes that they have and not maximise it. Which may work if you have a large talent pool of players or are a top nation in that sport, but is going to be detrimental to a team outside the top echelon. Certainly Cabo Verde never gave the impression that this was how they had been coached.

The opening game against Turkiye which the Socceroos won 2-0, thanks to two well taken goals and unbelievable backs-to the-wall defence, embodied the Socceroos of old. Every single player put their body on the line and battled to the end to ensure a victory. It was a performance that will live long in the memory.

Their second match against the host nation the USA could not have been more different as they went down 2-0. Coach Tony Popovic in his post match interview with SBS questioned whether the occasion was too much for some of his players playing against the host nation. He then went on to say “we had a lot of fatigued bodies in the first half. Physically and mentally it was tough.”

If an Australian team in the past had been overawed, you would never have known. They would never have let their opponent see that. They would have felt they deserved to be there and were as good if not better than their opponent. This was a game where many of the traits that have defined teh Socceroos went missing.

No one seems to have asked why were players fatigued as Popovic claimed. This is a World Cup, every team is playing games in quick succession. Of course it is going to be mentally tough as these are supposedly the best 48 teams in the world. As a coach you have to make sure that your players are prepared for such games.

It is hard to understand how they were physically fatigued after one game. Australia had six days between their first and second game, similar to any league competition in the world. Their first game was in Vancouver, Canada, their second in Seattle in the USA only a two and a half hour drive! So why were the players fatigued going into the game?

These are professional footballers, they should not be fatigued six days after a game. Clearly the support staff did not have the players ready, iso why not? As a coach if you knew the players were fatigued why did you select them?

Another question that has not been asked is did Popovic have adequate experience alongside him on the bench as his assistant coaches? He and Hayden Foxe have had great success at domestic level, but did Foxe have the knowledge required at a World Cup? As a player Foxe played for Australia at the 2001 Confederations Cup when the Socceros claimed 3rd place, and started in one game and came on as a substiute in another. He participated in two of the five games played in the biggest tournament of his international career

Popovic’s other assistant was Paul Okon the former captan of the Socceroos. Again his experience in coaching is limited, with a spell domestically with the Central Coast Mariners where he was sacked when they were bottom of the A-League, and before that he coached the Australian U20’s. Again despite playing at the highest level did he have the experience needed as a coach at a tournament such as this to help Popovic?

The game against the USA was not a good one for Australia, and it was so sad to see Australian players diving and falling over at the slightest touch. This is not the way Australia plays; or maybe it is the way we will see them play in the future?

Many in Australia have praised the Socceroos for their performances at the World Cup. There were without doubt moments when praise was warranted. Definitely key individuals deserved the plaudits they received. It was however clear that some selections back-fired.

Tony Popovic is an ambitious coach. He wants a job overseas, and why wouldn’t he? To improve you have to test yourself against the best. Here was his chance, but did he have his eye on what might come after rather than what was right in front of his face? One could not help feeling that the coach was trying to be too clever, too cute, with his selections and changes. Maybe hoping that they would show him to be tactically astute. Unfortunately it back-fired.

This was a disappointing campaign, although some will say it matched the team’s form in qualification. This was a team that struggled to get the win it needed to qualify against Japan’s second team, so maybe they actually did perform higher than expectations.

Which begs the question has Australian football fallen into the trap of expecting too much? Are fans seeing what they want to see?

It was certainly a strange move to bring into your World Cup squad a player who had rejected playing for Australia previously, and one who had never played a game at national level with the rest of the squad. One wonders how that was taken by the other players, even if they were unlikely to air their views.

At the end of the day one has to ask if the coaches knew what their best line-up was?

If we compare the performances of Australia in previous World Cup Finals where does this one really rate?

There can be no doubt that Rale Rasic’s team qualifying for a World Cup finals with only 16 teams, and making their opponents fight for a result is still up there. Guus Hiddink’s team were the first to win a game at a World Cup Finals and progress from their group in second place, only to be denied the chance to progress against eventual champions Italy on a decision that VAR may well have overturned today; but to be honest you never know with VAR!

Then there is Graham Arnold’s 2022 Socceroos who again achieved a second place finish in their group when only the top two progressed. They were also the first Australian side to win two games at a World Cup Finals. It is also worth noting that the only games they lost were to the two teams that contested the final, France in their pool, and Argentina in the round of 16.

Arnold had as his assistant Dutchman René Meulensteen who had experience coaching in other countries outside of the Netherlands, experience that would have brought an alternate perspective.

The flipside of that however is when Bert van Marwijk took over from Ange Postecoglou for the 2018 World Cup Finals he opted to bring in and pay his own backroom staff and assistant coaches. This was not a good campaign for Australia, and many have put that down to van Marwijk allegedly being forced to have Tim Cahill as part of his squad because the player was linked to a sponsorship campaign.

After the performance of Arnold’s Socceroos in 2022 is it therefore understandable that some feel that this campaign was underwhelming?

Let us look at Australia’s performances at the World Cup Finals.

Feisty former Socceroo Robbie Slater has come out blaming the coaching staff and those running the game. “The players were let down by the coaching staff and Football Australia. How are we still in the same position we were 20 years ago after we first reached the knockout stage in 2006? Someone needs to held accountable” he was quoted as saying by Code Sports.Does he have a point?

Looking at the table above credit must be given to Popovic and his team as Australia tightened up its defence in this World Cup. Only conceding three goals in four games, thanks in part to Patrick Beach. However, it was a far from memorable performance. It was one in which the team appeared to always be clinging on to games hoping to survive. A very different feeling to four years ago where under Graham Arnold you felt anything was possible.

Slater though does have a point when it comes to Football Australia. Why is it that Football Australia is still relying on the money from a World Cup Finals to bail them out financially?

Is there a goal as to where they want Australia to finish at a World Cup in 10 or 20 years time, like Japan? Or is it a case of hoping to get out of the group stage just to secure that extra money? What is interesting to note is when Hiddink and Arnold were in charge of the Socceroos at the World Cup there was a belief that they could progress. With this campaign that belief was missing and it was a hope that they could. How do you translate hope into belief?

One of the hard questions that has to be asked and listened to is does the sport have qualified individuals in the key positions to sign off on key issues or more importantly to say “no” when that is needed? Or is the sport still not able to attract the best people in key roles?

With consecutive financial losses it is definitely time for more transparency, especially if the game is as we are constantly told, a family. Where is money being lost? Expenditure needs to be looked at, and so too the capabilities and suitability of staff in key roles. Not just their salaries but their ability to deliver the sport what is required while in that role.

As covered before the governance structure needs to be adhered to so that every part of the game has a voice. (Are the Answers Football Australia is Looking for in the Crawford Report?)

Only then can we be sure of progressing on the international stage. As the old saying goes only a fool tries to build a house on sand.

As for on the field of play, Australia must emphasise the attributes players have, and use them to the team’s advantage. That has paid dividends in the past and it always will, within a structure there has to be some freedom, especially at this level and if technically you cannot match the top sides. Play to your strengths is an adage that has survived for a reason.

The post Goals and Strategy, Does Football Australia Have One With the Socceroos? first appeared on Not The Footy Show.

Of course when to go is according to those who have played at the highest level often a hard call to make. Yet, others have revealed it was one of the easiest decisions to make, as the drive or passion had gone. Which is understandable when you have worked so hard and often for so long to get to the top and then stay there.

Yet when that time comes the player concerned usually makes the announcement prior to a game or series, announcing that if picked this will be their last hoorah. Many wait until after they have played their last game, choosing to say nothing to avoid being in the spotlight and simply advise their team mates once the game is over and quietly walk away.

Rarely does a player announce their retirement during a game, which is what England cricket captain Ben Stokes did during the final and deciding test match of the three test series against New Zealand.

There was a great deal surrounding this announcement that was curious.

For starters the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) decided to film Stokes addressing his team mates and advising them that he was stepping down not only from the captaincy after this match, but away from Test Cricket. That in itself seemed a little strange, but even more bizarre was their decision to share his speech with the public.

Stokes will no doubt in years to come regret saying after letting his team know this was his last game, “the only thing I want is just for everyone to give it not only for me selfishly, but also for this team…”

Suddenly the words of the captain ceased to be about what was important to the team, and appeared to be more about the individual. IN fact the filming and release of that footage did exactly the same.

Maybe Stokes was forced to change what he would have liked to say to his team mates knowing this was being filmed, but surely as the captain he should have simply told everyone not directly involved in the game as a player or coach to leave, so that he could say what he wanted to say?

Former Black Cap New Zealander Kyle Mills likened Stokes saying to his team go out and play for me to when Australian skipper Michael Clarke announced hsi retirement on the eve of the 2015 Cricket World Cup; which Australia won. Suddenly the team was no longer the focus it became about the individual.

Kane Williamson who has been a wonderful cricketer too and a fantastic ambassador for New Zealand and cricket in general announced his retirement after the first Test of the series, but the contrast in how both went about it could not have been more different.

This writer has always believed that cameras should never be allowed in a dressing room in any sport and that landed him in hot water with one broadcaster he was working for passionately stating his case and why he held this opinion. Players need a place of sanctuary. Especially in today’s world where they are constantly under the microscope, and anyone can film them at any time. If they cannot be allowed to let their frustrations out in the dressing room where will they release those bottled up feelings?

There may be no validation of a claim made by one staffer in one of the football codes in Australia who blamed the increase in domestic violence issues among players in their sport to the fact that cameras have been allowed into the changing rooms. They were adamant that these cameras prevented players being able to be themselves post game, win or lose. No longer can they let their frustration out as there as a camera watching.They believed that those at home suffered more because of this.

The other issue that the ECB’s filming and then release of that footage raises is do they believe that Stokes’ brand is bigger than their own? Was this a calculated move to try and cash in on his popularity, some with expertise in this area have said that this would be a logical explanation for their actions.

As you would have expected the English media were stunned by the announcement and also the way it was done. They also could not believe that it happened during a game. Can you imagine a footballer or a rugby player deciding to announce their retirement at half time?

A week before this announcement the press were lambasting Stokes for staying out after a curfew that he it was claimed was involved in putting in place after England’s win in the first test, Suddenly all that was written was now positive hailing his feats as a player and a captain.

Although as is the norm these days not all of what was being said was factual. For example SKY Sports were hailing Stokes as England’s “greatest ever captain.” What was this based on?

If it was based on percentages of a captain’s results, Stokes record is an impressive 57.14, but it is not the best. In recent times Michael Vaughan’s record was 70.27 and Sir Andrew Strauss’s record was 68.57. The late Bob Willis’s record was 58.33, while Mike Brearley’s record was at 81.81% and Ray Illingworth 70.58%. Sir Len Hutton’s record was 73.33 and Peter May and Sir Colin Cowdrey both had a record of 66.66%.

You can go back even further and you will find WG Grace and Arthur Shrewsbury had higher percentages but like Bob Willis captained their country in less than 20 games.

Here is a comparison based on the games each captained. What is sad is how so many leading media personalities seem to know little about the game before 1990. They may be good analysts but clearly do not know the history of the game.

It is interesting to note that of the seven captains with a superior record to Stokes three were captains of Yorkshire, Hutton, Illingworth, and Vaughan. Although Michael Vaughan was born in Lancashire, but raised in Yorkshire.

Stoke’s record reflects the gung ho approach of “Bazball” with 18 losses and only 2 draws during his reign. Those he is being compared clearly had the view that if you could not win, you made sure that you did not lose,. therefore giving the team teh chance to still win the series.

Worryingly, as has been pointed out, at the present time England has only won 2 of their last ten Test matches. That is not a good record for any captain.

The problem that England has now is finding a new captain, as it would appear that there is no obvious choice within the current squad. Harry Brook was vice captain, but it is not just the incident with a night club bouncer in New Zealand that would have hampered his claim, but more damaging was the stupidity of his dismissal in the second innings of the final test against New Zealand. That, throwing away of his wicket showed a lack of maturity and game awareness.

This lack of leadership shows just how much pressure was on the shoulders of Stokes, and maybe explains his sudden resignation,

In his book “Turning Over the Pebbles” Mike Brearley looks back on his time as captain and states, “Being captain was almost never boring. It could be frustrating, emotionally difficult and anxiety producing. But it has been unfailingly interesting to me. There is in the role always something that can be done better or worse, there are always choices to be made, usually without grounds for certainty. One has to combine intuition with disciplined knowledge.”

One wonders how much Stokes would concur with Brearley’s reflection. One feels that the isolation of the role and the constant scrutiny would understandably wear one down.

To many there was something strange about the whole scenario. Some have said that they feel that there is more to the timing of the announcement and that no doubt this will come to light in the future.

It appears that Stokes and coach Brendon McCullum, while still friends were at odds over the way the team was playing. Stokes is a fierce competitor, a man who hates losing, and has clearly taken pride in representing England. There can be no doubt that he will have been hurt and humiliated by his team’s capitulation in Australia. Having had time to reflect on that tour one wonders whether he feels let down by the coach, as he clearly put his faith in the preparation and believed they were ready for an Ashes series.

Since Stokes departure there have been calls that the England hierachy must change, and that the coach too must go. Maybe this is a calculated move by those at the top? With Stokes stepping aside it would validate them opting for a new coach.

There are some that feel Stokes was pushed into resigning and quitting. Others believe that he simply felt let down by the way he felt he was being treated and judged. Yes, he did wrong by staying out after the curfew, but there can be no doubt the one test suspension deeply hurt him.

There is no doubt that England are going to miss him as a player, as he is without doubt one of England’s greatest all rounders and possibly its greatest. He has frequently dragged his team to victory by his own herculean feats with bat and ball. That however takes its toll both physically and mentally that is without the added responsibility of the captaincy.

Stokes made his Test debut in Australia in December 2013, so has been playing at the highest level for 13 years, and has been captain for almost fifty percent of that time, having taken over the role in July 2020 against the West Indies.

As he said in one interview he had fallen out of love with the game at the highest level. On BBC Test match Special he said, “I absolutely love cricket. I love the sport and that’s something I need to make sure that I always feel like I’m doing and over the last six months, 12 months, however long it may be there’s been certain moments where I feel like I haven’t loved it. My time last week back with Durham there wasn’t a moment when I didn’t. And so being able to compare what it was like being back at my county where everything sort of started with me and people who I grew up with and then comparing it to here (Test Cricket), where I’ve always loved, to not feel that sense of love, and complete and utter enjoyment like I have done for pretty much the 100 and whatever Test matches before then, you just sort of know being able to compare what it was like last week playing for Durham and comparing it to all of the other things this week. Yeah it was tough to see me going on past this test match.”

This comment is a telling one. It also lends strength to the argument that County cricket not only serves a purpose in unearthing Test players of the future, but it also gives players who are playing at that pinnacle of the game the opportunity to offer them a release from the high pressure stakes. A time when a player can indeed go back and enjoy playing. Stokes comment exposes a very real flaw in the Centralised contract system, and also the England Cricket calendar which for years now has prevented these top players playing for their counties in front of those more localised fans.

England Cricket clearly has a lot to learn, and Ben Stokes’s career, if they choose to look at it will given them many indications as to what needs to be fixed or tweaked. Yet one feels that those at the top of the game are far too myopic to see what is right under their noses.

Stokes will be a big loss to English cricket, He has been fearless and unforgettable. Yet like so many outstanding sportspeople has also been flawed; many of the greats are wired differently to the rest of us, that is what makes them who they are.

Stokes loves a challenge, and in his career he has played in six Ashes series and only beaten Australia once in England in 2015. There are many who believe that after falling back in love with the game at Durham, Stokes will be mentally recharged to come out of retirement in 2027 and play a part in England’s campaign to reclaim the Ashes as his final swan song. Was this in fact the agreement made with the ECB? Take a break and come back in a year?

More importantly Is a comeback for the Ashes series really too unbelievable?

The post Is This Really The End? first appeared on Not The Footy Show.

If they did they maybe would have thought a little harder about the final pool game between Austria and Algeria at the 2026 FIFA World Cup Finals.

Back in 1982 t6he Final Group games in teh various World Cup Pools were NOT played at the same time. This meant that teams knew what they had to do to progress in the tournament.

At this edition of the World Cup there were only 24 teams contesting the finals. These teams were placed into six pools of four teams The top two teams in each pool progressed, where they were then placed in a new pool of three teams. Once each team in these four pools had played each other the top teams progressed to the semi-finals.

In the initial Group Stage Algeria were in a group with Chile, West Germany and Austria. Algeria had played it’s last game a day earlier than when West Germanty met Austria, and had been unable to achieve the four-goal victory margin that would have seen them progress to the next round irrespective of the result in the final pool match.

Algeria had beaten two-time World Champions and the reigning European Champion West Germany 2–1 in the first round, then had lost to Austria 2–0, before beating Chile 3–2.

So heading into their final group match Austria and West Germany knew that a West German win by fewer than three goals would qualify both teams for the knockout stage, while any other result would see either Austria or West Germany eliminated.

West Germany took an early lead through Horst Hrubesch and it appeared to be a normal game up to half time and then both teams started to “defend” the 1–0 scoreline, ensuring that they both progressed in the tournament. The West German and Austrian teams were accused of manipulation and understandably Algeria who were eliminated lodged a formal complaint. FIFA ruled that neither team had broken any rules.

This match has been labeled many things, the “Disgrace of Gijón” is the most well known. The Algerians refer to it as the “Scandal of Gijón,” and in French as “The Shameful Match.”

However, after the tournament FIFA revised the group system for future competitions announcing that the final two games in each group would be played simultaneously. This was seen as the ideal way of preventing teams colluding and agreeing to an outcome that benefitted both teams, essentially, Match-fixing.

Interestingly Algeria have been embroiled in a whole new row with conspiracy theorists claiming that they conspired this time with Austria to play out a draw to ensure that both progress at the 2026 World Cup Finals and Iran be eliminated.

The game was tied at 2-2 in the closing minutes, and it certainly looked as if this could have been the case, as neither team was keen to go on the attack. Or was that because they did not want to expose themselves at the back?

Certainly Algeria looked as if they were content to run down the clock. Algeria were knocking the ball around at the back, and Austria were not applying any pressure, the crowd was booing, knowing only too well what was happening. It certainly looked like an agreement, albeit unspoken, had been made. One report claimed that Algeria had made 110 uncontested passes in time added on.

Then three minutes into stoppage time a ball was played in behnd the Austrian defence and Algeria’s captain Riyad Mahrez scored his second goal of the game with about a minute left. The Africans were through, and Austria were facing elimination. Could this be payback for “82? If there had been an agreement had Algeria deliberately broken it?

The conspiracy theorists have pointed to the celebrations after the goal for what happened next. It is true that Mahrez’s team mates were not quick to rush and join him in his celebrations. Surely they knew their history? Surely nothing could have been sweeter than to payback Austria? So where were they?

The four minutes of stoppage time had elapsed, yet play continued. Austria pushed forward and scored. They were now going through to the knockout stages and Iran were going home.

Again the conspiracy theorists have said that the Algerian urgency and commitment after their third goal was lacklustre to say the least. They put the lack of celebration and the lack of defending dowto the fact that had Algeria won that game they would have had to meet Spain in the round of 32. By drawing it they now face Switzerland, a team that they no doubt believe they have a better chance of beating.

Was there an agreement? Or was it simply Algeria looking to avoid meeting Spain?

Ironically these same two two teams who were involved in that shameful night in Gijón almost 44 years to the day have thrown up a new problem. It is very clear to fans across the world that this year’s expanded event, where the eight best third place teams obtain a place in the round 32 has seen a very unsatisfactory, and some would say is an unfair way of determining who progresses. After all as we hear at every tournament some groups are perceived to be easier than others in terms of opposition. So third place in “a group of death” would appear to be a reasonable achievemnet, however such a team could be eliminated due to goal difference.

Then there is teh question as t9o whether teams are manipulating outcomes in order to ensure progression or who they meet as they progress? It appears that this is very much the case.

So FIFA, who are intent on sticking with 48 teams at the World Cup Finals are going to have to sit around the table and work out a better way to trim 48 teams down to 32, while still protecting the integrity of the matches. For the expanded World Cup to have any credibility they must find a way in which games remain meaningful and are not manipulated to determine not only who progresses in the tournament, but who they play.

In 1982 teams progressed to another pool would this be a format worth revisiting? However, there is still the issue of trimming 48 teams down to 32; eliminating the bottom team would leave you with 36 teams.

There is an old saying “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” Maybe the 32 format really was the best option, and maybe FIFA would be better off returning to that model?

The post Back To The Drawing Board? first appeared on Not The Footy Show.