A quick look at The Hockey Show’s club locator reveals there are 36 synthetic grounds in metropolitan Melbourne, with another 4 scattered throughout Victoria.
Which of these grounds do you think need replacing?
Surely there are some grounds that need to be retired or at least resurfaced if they are to playable in the near future – Essendon number 2, Doncaster & Footscray number 2 are just a few that I can think of. Injuries are more likely to happen, and this must be addressed to avoid scenes similar to the picture below. In the coming years clubs like Camberwell, Waverley, MUHC, Hawthorn/TEM, Kew and Greensborough are going to need to come up with the money to replace or upgrade their existing grounds.
Without being too harsh about it Doncaster, in particular, is a mess and an injury related lawsuit waiting to happen. We love the Doncaster people and the fact that it feels like you are playing out in the wilderness is kind of cool but the ground is in a shocking state. The last time I played out there my orange Camberwell uniform looked more like I had dived in the Yarra when the game had finished….its a time bomb waiting for someone to get a cut infected and have some serious health problems as a result
Should clubs be concentrating on replacing grounds with sand, water or hybrid surfaces? My feeling is that the future of hockey is with the hybrids….with the ongoing drought in Australia water filled grounds will become more and more expensive as well as politically on the nose, while sand filled grounds are cheaper but probably don’t play as well as the hybrids. Altona and MCC have both installed hybrid grounds that seem to play quite well – what are people’s thoughts?
Finally, would the Victorian hockey competition would be better served by a smaller number of grounds that are used more frequently and by more than one club so that maintenance costs as well as upfront costs to replace or upgrade can be shared amongst clubs?
The cost to replace a synthetic turf is in the order of $350,000 which is a massive cost for amateur sporting clubs to come up with every 10 years or so. Once you add maintenance costs into the mix the ability for smaller clubs to come up with the cash to replace their ground is difficult.
Perhaps the questions is superfluous – like are there too many ex Neighbours starlets trying to thrash out a singing career – although having done a bit of research about the numbers of grounds in other states, we do seem to have heaps of grounds in Victoria and particularly in Melbourne.
In NSW and Qld, hockey is mainly regionally based which means less grounds in the big cities – Brisbane has only 3 synthetic grounds, Canberra has 3 , Perth and SA have only 5 while NT has only 2.
If you calculate the number of hockey players (from the 2006 Hockey Australia census) per synthetic ground per state the numbers stack up like this:
TAS 590; Victoria: 597; NSW 634; NT 825; QLD 1020; ACT 1591; SA 2190; WA 5372.
Of the states with the largest hockey playing populations (QLD, NSW, Vic & WA) Victoria and WA have the most centralised hockey playing populations, with NSW and QLD having strong regional competitions.
There has been some heated debate on the forums over the last year or two about which state has the strongest hockey competition, with the Western Australian and the Victorian comps both having their own advocates. Does the number of grounds per state affect the quality of the competition? The number of players per ground in WA and Victoria are poles apart but these two competitions are regularly sited as being the strongest in the country.
Interested to hear people’s thoughts….
Related posts:
April 7th, 2008 at 7:57 am
BRyan,
I honestly believe that the future success of Victorian hockey may depend on the result of what type of pitches are put down. I understand the thinking that has to go behind what pitch is laid, i.e. water restriction, financial reasons, and in the case of some pitches, location, but from purely a hockey perspective there needs to be a whole lot more water pitches in Melbourne for the Vikings and Vipers to get the results that they are capable of.
I believe that playing and training on sand all year (plus the occasional water) has a negative impact on play. I think this because my game has changed as a result. If we look at the other states you have mentioned then we can understand a little better what I mean as well.
WA – There is only one or two clubs in the first division using sand, even some schools are water based.
NSW – Again, the majority (I say majority because depending on the clubs that are in that year) play on water. And some of the country areas that are strong have water based pitches.
Qld – I’m pretty sure the Brisbane comp is localised at the Brisbane complex, plus Gold coast, Cairns, Townsville, Rocky etc all have wet turfs.
Tas – Hobart comp (Which is the one people move to play in, and has a game televised each week on ABC) is wet pitch.
ACT – Have 4 pitches, 3 water at one location, and 1 sand. One first grade game per week is played out there to increase hockey numbers in that area.
SA – Similar to VIC
NT – Central location like ACT
Now if we compare that to Victorian hockey then you see quite a difference, where two thirds of our games are on sand plus training.
Don’t get me wrong, I know how successful Victoria have been in the past and I’m not sure of how long since the Vikings have won the AHL but I do believe that they have the squad to it, but if they continue to play and train on sand all year, they are slightly behind the eight ball. The skills used are different, passing, trapping, hitting all different. The way hockey is now with 3D skills (jinking, sqeezing and air drags etc) the ability or lack of ability to do this on sand based fields means that the only time players get to work on these skills are during representative training.
The other alternative you have mentioned is the hybrid pitch. They run really well when they are wet! But when they are dry, I’ve found them to be very bouncy and sticky to play on. I think marginally better than sand but no where near as good as the “real” thing.
I’ve also been fortunate enough to play in some European countries where the kids grow up playing on wet based pitches. Forgetting all the benefits of starting on grass, some that have been debated on the Forum at the moment, like hitting, upright trapping and shooting, the skills that these kids have compared to young hockey players at the same age (all around Australia) is remarkable. But this may be a different example all together.
As I said, this is purely from a hockey perspective, but the type of pitch needed to produce the best hockey is a water based pitch. And I honestly believe that if more clubs had water fields then you would see a dramatic improvement in the success rate of all representative team especially the Vikings because next to Queensland I think they have the strongest squad in Australia.
April 7th, 2008 at 8:53 am
I dont like hybrid grounds. I dont think they play well at all. I understand the theory behind them, but clubs who install them may have the intial intention that they may water them occasionally but this doesnt ever seem to be the case. What you are left with is essentially a sand ground with long pile which gets matted down unevenly and resulting in the ground not playing as well as an actual sand ground.
I know hybrids play well in the wet, but no one ever waters them. If you are not going to water a hybrid ground you are better off with a good sand ground.
April 7th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Bryan wrote: …Doncaster, in particular, is a mess and an injury related lawsuit waiting to happen. We love the Doncaster people and the fact that it feels like you are playing out in the wilderness is kind of cool but the ground is in a shocking state….
SM response: The surface at Doncaster is being relaced, but has anybody noticed the ground is built east-west, it should have been built north-south. It remains one of the biggest blunders of all time.
Paul Mac wrote: …The skills used are different, passing, trapping, hitting all different. The way hockey is now with 3D skills (jinking, sqeezing and air drags etc) the ability or lack of ability to do this on sand based fields means that the only time players get to work on these skills are during representative training…..
SM response: I do recall you praising the virtues of Indoor Hockey and yet none of the skills you mention are part of the Indoor game. I would rather play on sand than play Indoor.
Marketing
April 7th, 2008 at 11:49 am
SM are you suggesting that one can’t praise indoor hockey and believe it to be valuable as well as believe that water based turfs are required? How are these two seperate thoughts not compatible?
April 7th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
SM plays ???
April 7th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
my suggestion is that SM plays, and plays often!
April 7th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
There are a few things many would suggest about SM, most of them not suitable for print.
April 7th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
SM: I’m going to get into an argument with you because you seem to take things out of context at times, as this is far from the initial point raised. I still believe indoor is valuable but for different reasons. Playing on sand does not allow you to do much at all in regard to skills. Sand makes fast smooth drags difficult. I really don’t care if you’d rather play on sand than indoor, again this isn’t the discussion. My point was, I believe that for Victorian Hockey teams to win more titles we need more wet surfaces in Victoria.
April 7th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Doncaster is currently in the process of replacing it’s pitch. We have gone away from the water based for one reason only – lack of water.
While we had (as others had also) been operating under an exemption the next stage (4) would of meant the end of hockey at the Doncaster facility.
There is no doubt water based is the premium surface – we would like to be laying the same right now, however we do have irrigation to water our new Hybrid pitch when finished. We have gone with the TEAM sports product (Altona and MCC) and consulted specialists when making our descision (Andrew Smith and Russell Ford).
Maybe the answer is a cap on new pitches?
Maybe all SL1 should be played at SNHC?
Maybe we could try SL1 games on a Friday night when juniors are not playing – we could get 5 games at SNHC on a Friday.
Anyway – hope to see you all at Doncaster again soon.
Go Donnies.
PS – we have had to put our beer up to $7 to pay for the new surface – JUST JOKING.
An advantage going forward is not needing to water for schools during the day, water everynight of the week, water for U9′s and 11′s etc, etc.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Politically, water-based surfaces are unlikely to gain governmental approval at any level. The reality is that we have to look elsewhere, and hybrids seem to be the best option at the moment. Unless your club wins tattslotto or your local MP is a hockey player, get used to it.
April 7th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
RH, I would assume the 100% reduction in watering costs would lead the way for a reduction in the cost of beer? You’re on a promise as pres to provide members and visitors a value-for-money community services?
April 8th, 2008 at 9:02 am
There are 58 synthetic fields in NSW (by my count), 30 of them water. No one is pulling up water and putting down sand, but they are installing recycling systems that dramatically reduce water usage (7.2Ml down to less than 2Ml).
Sydney has a total of 14 turfs with 10 of them water. 3 of the sands are in schools and the other one has a waterbased alongside it. There is very little competitive hockey played on sand at any level in Sydney. All Premier games are on water and clubs that don’t have a waterbase are forced to play their home games elsewhere.
I think that the reduction in player numbers in Sydney has definitely affected the strength of the comp and the performance of the AHL team. Lack of turfs in Sydney, where no-one will give you the land to put one down, is one of the prime reasons for the fall in numbers.
April 8th, 2008 at 9:29 am
RH wrote:
Maybe the answer is a cap on new pitches?
Maybe all SL1 should be played at SNHC?
Maybe we could try SL1 games on a Friday night when juniors are not playing – we could get 5 games at SNHC on a Friday.
SM response:
If you want to bury the sport then your three points make the perfect formula.
Just follow the Hockey Australia model and keep putting GEOGRAPHY between supporters and teams.
Look, no one is going to travel to the SNHC to watch SL1 and history has proved that. Do you not remember MSL1 R1 2007, Essendon V Doncaster at the SNHC on a Friday night. What a crowd puller that was…not.
Marketing
April 8th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Paul Mac wrote:
…My point was, I believe that for Victorian Hockey teams to win more titles we need more wet surfaces in Victoria.
SM response:
While winning state titles are important, what is more important is that Victoria has 5 Men in the Olympic squad, second only to QLD.
There are a lot more factors involved then just instaling water based surfaces when it comes to producing competitive State teams and/or producing International standard players.
Marketing
April 8th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Good idea SM – lets do NOTHING – lets leave everything the way it is now. The Ess V Don was a one off that was not publicised very well. We need to try a complete round – 5 games – to see if it works – we also need to maybe try this more than once.
From what I read in these forms plenty of people throw up ideas only for SM to knock them down – hang on I have got to go – I have Telstra on the other line wanting to sponsor hockey.
April 8th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
RH, You don’t get it.
People might turn up to the SNHC to watch AHL or an International match, but they are not going to travel to the SNHC and pay entry fee to watch MSL1.
However supporters will attend MSL1 matches when they are played at a home venue. Last year TEM and Southern did a great job getting crowds to their home venues. It’s good for the sport and its good revenue for the clubs.
Marketing
April 8th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
SM I agree with that the games should not be moved to the SNHC. The home and away fixtures are very important in the development of our sport.
If the Vikings had won, they would’ve had more! My opinion is the type of field we continually have to play on is not good enough. If sand is a good enough surface and can produce a quality of hockey that is equal what water can, why is not used for ANY major tournament in the world?
Hybrid is better than sand but only when watered, so maybe HV makes a rule that they’re are watered for SL1 games?
April 8th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Hard for MCC and Altona to water – they don’t have an irrigation system.
If Yarra Valley Water say you can’t use water it doesn’t matter what HV say.
Bendigo installed a water pitch and it has only just come back on line after not being used for 18 months due to water restrictions in the area.
Water recycling is not an option – you get about 15% return on all water captured.
I agree 100% – water based is the optimum surface but in todays climate it is just not viable – things might change in 5 or 10 years.
The FIH is talking to manufacturers at the moment looking to change from water based – this will not happen in the next 12 months but they are aware of the climate and water restrictions world wide.
April 11th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
SM seems to have plenty of knockers here but one thing he said is spot on – people will not go to the SNHC to watch MSL1.
S-1 and S-2 are great surfaces to play on but the SNHC facility is a drain on the hockey communities pocket by taking games away from clubs home grounds.
the problem with the SNHC is partly to do with the entry fee but also the lack of atmosphere and the location which often means using the CityLink and spending more $$$. mostly of course because the majority of the population don’t know even know about the existence of an elite hockey club comp in Melbourne.
saying all that I wonder how many ‘hockey people’ from non-SL1 clubs would go and watch a SL1 game each weekend even though the majority of games (at club grounds) are free to attend? would suggest very few so why would they pay to go the SNHC and watch a game!?!?!