Hockey's Quarters Chaos

In recent times there has been some criticism directed towards hockey in relation to the current international tournament formats. The conversation is often centred around the fairness of formats that have knockout Quarter Finals - a format which has been used over the last few years in a number of the major international hockey tournaments.

In 2016 in Rio, Quarter Finals were used for the first time at an Olympics. They are also the centre piece of hockey’s World League which was implemented in 2013.

The format of the World League Final sees eight teams split into two pools of four with each team playing the others in their pool to determine final rankings of 1-4. Crossover knockout quarter finals (1v4, 2v3, 3v2, 4v1) are then played with all teams involved regardless of their performances in the pool phase of the tournament. This approach essentially ensures that everyone gets a one off shot at making the Semi-Finals.

The criticism comes from the position that a team’s performances in the round games aren’t rewarded or penalised sufficiently and that the existing system can create unbalanced pool rankings which then lead to ‘luck of the draw’ placements for the knockout Quarter Finals. 

There is also the hidden and unmentioned stress from the exposure to this uncertainty and risk, and the potential ignominy from an abrupt failure and the associated consequences. 

The recent Women’s World League Finals held in Auckland provided the perfect case study of this scenario. The Blacksticks finished last in their pool having failed to win a single game. The penalty / reward of these performances was to play an undefeated Argentina who had finished first in the other pool in a cut throat knockout Quarter Final.

After losing their first three games, the Blacksticks went on to make the final where they were defeated by a powerhouse Dutch outfit to win the silver medal. Their performance of two wins from six games continues to underline the questions raised in the hockey community about the format. Argentina finished the tournament in fifth place despite winning five games out of six.

There are a number of anomalies in this equation that back up some of the angst in the hockey community regarding the fairness of the format.

 “NZ make the World League final after losing all three round games? Argentina settle for fifth after winning all three round games? What are you doing @FIH_Hockey and why support such a bad system that allows these types of unfair results?”

Simon Orchard - Australian World Cup Gold Medallist

 “Get rid of the quarter finals play semi’s only. Stop rewarding teams that play poorly throughout. Soon everyone will get a medal too!!”

Grant Schubert - Australian Olympic Gold Medalist

Further evidence of the impact that this tournament format can have can be seen from the combined finals results from the major tournaments that have been played with this approach. This is inclusive of the results from the Rio Olympics and the three World League Finals that have been conducted since this formats inception.

 Favourites Winning Percentage

 Quarter Finals = 61.7%

Semi-Finals = 62.5%

Finals / Medal Games = 58.2%

 N.B. The determination of favourites in each contest is based on a combination of FIH world rankings at the time the games were played and where available bookies odds leading into each game.

Whilst drawing strong conclusions from small sample sizes is generally a flawed exercise, these numbers do seem to support the current anxiety felt by the programs and supporters that generally sit in (or are expected to sit in) the favourite category. 

There’s no doubt they would prefer a format that provides more security, less randomness and an overall process that supports regression to the mean for the better teams. When it comes to Semi-Finals and Finals there is an acceptance and understanding that at this stage of a tournament anything can happen and that teams had earned the right to be there.

As we absorb the fact that only 60% of favourites have won their Quarter Finals, the reality of the anxiety felt is highlighted.

The FIH objective is not about fairness though - it’s about theatre and engagement. The more uncertainty and drama the better and when this is coupled with an inclusive method of everyone being able to get in on the act, it’s a winning formula.

This can only enhance hockey as a sport, albeit at the psychological expense of the top ranked teams and the associated potential consequences that could have ripple effects through the sport in their country.

If the format direction remains the same which I believe it must, stronger and weaker programs alike will continue to have a more ‘equal opportunity’, something they will need to adapt to.

With the upcoming World Cup being played with Quarter Finals for the first time, it appears the FIH is committed to continuing the search for this ‘equal opportunity’. 

The new World Cup format will see the top team from each pool automatically earn Quarter Final births while the 2nd and 3rd ranked teams in each pool will play cross over knockout games in order to reach the Quarter Final phase of the tournament.

With these format adjustments the FIH has endeavoured to answer the questions regarding the relevance of the round games and potentially the fairness or balance of Quarter Final matchups. But without too much imagination one can see numerous potential outcomes which will fuel the dialogue related to Quarter Finals. The new World Cup initiative of repechage Quarter Finals will only add to this.

W. C. Fields once famously said “Never give a sucker an even break.” Fortunately and unfortunately for some, the FIH seems intent on making sure it does.

Hockey must hold this course but there is further exploration to be done before it arrives at the right destination.