Grass hockey — is it still feasible?

S. Thyagarajan

Chennai: Can competitive hockey come back to natural grass? This is an interesting question; somewhat even imprudent at this juncture. More than a generation has passed since the synthetic pitches became a reality after the Olympic Games in Montreal in 1976.

However, the subject of grass hockey pops up now and then for a debate, especially in Asia, more specifically in India and Pakistan.

Interest in the subject is being revived, and significantly, on the eve of the week-long meetings of the International Hockey Federation starting at Los Angeles from November 23. The sessions conclude with the FIH Congress on November 29, the day on which the election of the President is scheduled.

While there is a section which still believes that hockey on grass will ensure the return of the Sub-Continent to the top, what is noteworthy is the attention being paid to the subject by the Asian Hockey Federation.

How far will the AHF take up the matter and succeed during the forthcoming Congress is a matter of conjecture. But that the administration is keen to project the advantages, or at least the need to recognise natural grass as an acceptable alternative sounds good indeed.

Cost factor

The stress is likely on cost factor as main source that impedes development in countries like Cambodia, Vietnam, Nepal, the Philippines and Kazhakstan. Interestingly, the case for retaining grass as part of hockey’s competitive structure was first voiced by the then President of the Indian Olympic Association, Raja Bhalindra Singh, even as early as in the mid-Eighties.

He questioned the wisdom of confining hockey to artificial grass pointing out when a more popular sport like tennis was allowed to play on three surfaces — natural grass, clay and artificial surfaces even in Grand Slam competitions, why should hockey be restricted one surface all over the world.

The issue was even raised during an FIH Congress by Prof. Gurusewak Singh. It is a fact of history that the Asian super powers never presented a serious opposition to the elimination of grass in preference to synthetic pitches.

It is debatable whether now is the time to put the clock back, especially after the leading hockey playing nations in the continent had invested heavily on synthetic pitches.

India, Pakistan, Malaysia, South Korea, China and Japan now have sufficient number of artificial state-of-the-art venues to stage international competitions. It is only countries like Cambodia, Vietnam and the Philippines, that feel the pinch to go in for full fledged venues.

A solution

The solution for the AHF lies in impressing on the FIH to help these countries through the programme of donor pitches. Several African and South American countries have been benefited by the FIH schemes as part of its developmental programmes.

The AHF can also create a mechanism to suggest ways and means of installing mini-turf pitches in schools, colleges and clubs as the starting point in those countries keen on getting into the hockey fold.

More than once the FIH has clarified that it is never against any team playing on natural grass but is clear that events conducted on it will not get official recognition, or sanction.

So, there is an avenue for AHF to project the advantages of grass pitches whether the FIH is prepared to give it a hearing or not in the LA meetings.

A clear cut policy is likely to be framed when the AHF holds its bi-annual Congress at Kuala Lumpur next month.