Will hockey become defensive?

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32252, 21 March 1970, Page 9

Will hockey become defensive?

'THE International Hockey Federation has recently requested all affiliated national associations to conduct experiments during 1970 with an altered off-side rule, the alteration requiring two opponents instead of the former three to be between a player receiving the ball and the opposing goal-line. Other provisions in the rule remain unchanged. In response to this request, the New Zealand Hockey Association has decreed that the experimental rule shall apply to all domestic hockey during the forthcoming season. This experiment should prove most interesting, and the extent to which it will influence team formations and tactics remains to be seen. Because it is quite new, players and coaches

have no experience of it, and their present conjectures must therefore be academic and subject to revision and amendment. It is likely that the intention of the federation is to add speed to attacking play and to create increased space for advancing forwards. Is this result probable? When the same alteration was introduced to soccer many years ago, the immediate reaction was the withdrawal of the attacking centre half and his conversion to the role of a third back. In the course of time the trend has been towards an increase in the number of defensive players with a consequent loss of attacking players. Hence there has been no change in the average number of goals, a match, and the problem of improving striking power

without weakening the defence still remains. Moreover, available space for running off the ball has been reduced. It is likely that a similar trend will develop in hockey. The old rule was worth an extra defensive player; the new rule is likely to demand that he be provided in person, and this will probably mean a reduction in the forward line. The old rule provided scope for attack with five forwards, closely supported by at least two half-backs. The new rule does not change the need for the shortest avenues to the circle to be guarded, it emphasises it. Hence two backs should continue to operate in infield positions. The wing halves may well be retained to restrain the free running of the opposing wing forwards, and the

backs may need adequate covering to check the more advanced positions now available to the opposing attack. This would leave a choice between attacking with five forwards unsupported by any midfield player or providing an attacking centre half by reducing the forward line to four players. In either case the effect will be a struggle between a smaller number of attacking players and a greater number of defenders. Hence the result will probably be the reverse of that which is intended. The most valuable space of all for the scoring of goals is that near and inside the opposing circle. It is likely to become more restricted than ever. In short, any possible space gain in the midfield will be more than cancelled by its loss in the area of an

attack's culmination. It is difficult to see how legislation can produce higher scoring. It is more likely to develop a defensive outlook on the part of coaches and players. This does not mean that the experiment is not worth a trial. If it should be found in practice that it has a stifling influence upon attacking play, a return to the former rule can be made. It requires a thorough trial so that its full implications can be ascertained. Even then there may be division of opinion about it, because it might penalise the more skilful teams by reducing their reward for their numerous attacks, a development which the weaker countries could conceivably welcome. It will certainly be a talking point of considerable interest during the 1970 season.