Introduction of Astroturf (synthetic turf) in 1976 has completely changed the way the game of hockey is played. It has become faster and surer now. Still when you talk to the old timers (pre 1976), players and spectators who played & watched hockey on grass, hockey playing and watching was more interesting then. This may sound little out of place because on a sure and fast astro surface the game should be more attractive and pleasing to watch. With the ball changing ends so frequently one sees more moves and counter moves. The increase in number of goals scored or goal scoring opportunities should add to the spectators’ interest. Due surety of surface infringements are less and therefore the actual playing time is definitely more. Level of physical fitness required for a fast paced game is much higher than what was required on grass.
Are the old timers right in their opinion or is it the human nature to say that “their time was the best”.
Old timers think:
– When the surface was not as sure as the astroturf, for the very basics of hockey i.e. to stop the ball, a player had to be more skillful. It was not as simple that you put your stick down and the ball will stop as we observe on synthetic turf. Same was applicable to all other skills such as receiving, passing, hitting, pushing & scooping. As the players had to put in extra effort to master these skills, the skills displayed during the match showed element of perfection. No doubt about that.
– The build up to an attack was more deliberate and methodical and pleasing to watch. Long hitting or distance scooping did not help much. Another reason for the deliberate build up of an attack was the off-side rule. Therefore, it was not practicable / possible for someone to hit hard from some where in his own half to someone already positioned inside the opponents ‘D’ waiting to receive the ball and attempt to score. As a result the ball travels from one end of the field to the other with nothing on offer for the spectators in between. Earlier the battle of wits between the attackers and defenders made interesting watching, the defender laying the off-side trap and attacker using all his guile to beat the trap. Once the attacker was able to beat the trap, there were opportunities to display individual brilliance; more so for the players who had speed. A forward moving at top speed, at times leading to one to one situation between the forward and the goal keeper had spectators on the edge of their seats.
Change in tactics due to change in surface has also to some extent resulted in the game becoming dull from the spectators point of view. Due to non surety of the surface a back pass on grass was considered to be a sin. If for some reason a team-mate could not stop the ball in a back pass, it was simply inviting trouble. Therefore emphasis was on forward play leading to more attacking play than defensive mind set.
On synthetic turf the teams can resort to back passing or parallel passing in their own half, lying in wait for an opportunity to start a move. May be upto 15 to 20% of playing time is spent on this activity. This back passing / parallel passing with very little skill on display does not interest the spectators. No wonder one hears the cry of “boos” from spectators if it is carried out for too long with no effort to move forward.
The “grass” generation is entitled to its own views. Where as “astro generation” finds hockey on lush green surface more refreshing, faster and pleasing to the eye.
The endeavor is not to create a biased view. The reader is free to form his own opinion on “Then and Now”. If you have a view, please spare some time and send it across hockeybook@gmail.com