GB great, Simon Mason analyzes the hockey tournament at the Paris Games

Reflections from the commentary box.

As a three-time Olympic goalkeeper and one of the best-known commentary voices in hockey, Simon Mason has always had an excellent vantage point on the game. He was in Paris commentating for the BBC this summer and took the time to share his analysis of the Olympic hockey tournament with us, this time with the advantage of the rear-view mirror.

What are your standout moments from the Olympic hockey venue?

One moment that has stuck with me was when the Chinese women went into their huddle having won their quarterfinal. Some of the players were in tears because they'd achieved something they'd never dreamed of. They had a medal chance.

But Alyson Annan stood in the huddle and basically said, ‘Look, why are you crying? Don't cry, because we've got to this point. This was never the goal. The goal was far beyond this.’

The penny dropped in that moment and to see that realization on the players’ faces that they deserved to be there, was great to witness. It was a fabulous bit of management and reminds you that success isn’t just about what happens on the pitch. It’s about culture, relationships, trust off the pitch too.

And from the men’s competition?

It has to be the intensity of the final between the Dutch and the Germans. But not far behind that, the GB v India game that knocked GB out of the tournament on shootouts was emotional as was Spain v France with a full house. That game had everything. It was high tempo, it had the moments of controversy, the excitement. It had a home crowd who weren't necessarily a hockey crowd, but they were an Olympic crowd, and that is really important, because you get a little bit more atmosphere and a little bit more partisan support which is brilliant.

“That game had everything. It was high tempo, it had the moments of controversy, the excitement. It had a home crowd who weren’t necessarily a hockey crowd, but they were an Olympic crowd”

And then there’s the women’s final when China nearly took Gold from the Dutch? What’s your analysis?

China have put in place, probably, one of the single most highly regarded coaching and management teams ever led by Alyson Annan and Ric Charlesworth. They've created an identity to positively manipulate the small playing base that they've got, to deliver a performance based on their technical skills and a high intensity, physical environment. It wasn’t a fluke. It was a planned success and it shows that investment in an intelligent coaching team can pay off. I think it's important globally.

“It wasn’t a fluke. It was a planned success and it shows that investment in an intelligent coaching team can pay off. I think it’s important globally.”

Can China sustain that success?

Their Olympic silver was built on a really solid defensive platform, some good goalkeeping, good defending and execution of set plays. But the long-term sustainability of their success will depend on finding and realizing the natural gameplay and skill, development and understanding with such a small playing base when the big names retire. It doesn't feel like they've reached that expansive, free-flowing hockey yet that will dictate long-term multi-game success.

What do the Olympic hockey performances tell us about the shape of the game globally?

We did a lot of our analysis and predictions pre-Games and it looked like it was going to be a European-heavy tournament. To some degree you could argue that it was if you look at player and individual performances across the tournament, but it’s really important to recognize that nations from different continents are coming up through the ranks. We must encourage the spread of our sport to make sure we’re globally relevant and the Olympics showed us we are in a good place to do that. The excitement is almost unrivalled. The pace and the skill and the technique and the athleticism that we now have is just incredible to watch and be part of. And when it's televised well, it's a brilliant showcase for the game on a worldwide scale.

There was some incredible defensive play this tournament. Is this a trend and will it detract from the excitement for the fans?

I always ask myself the question ‘Am I excited by what I watch and what I talk about?’ And I was genuinely excited by the majority of what I watched and saw above and beyond almost any other tournament. From a men's perspective, it was the single best hockey tournament I've witnessed in terms of consistency and excitement of performance. I don't think the women's side has quite reached that peak yet - I've seen other tournaments that have been equally as good - but I genuinely believe we have an exciting sport and it didn't feel like teams were just sitting back and defending in Paris.

Some of the ranges of play that existed, the athleticism, the end-to-end play was phenomenal. The average goal count was pretty much what we expect across international hockey and some of the games are played at a ferocious pace in ferocious conditions. So I don't see that we're going to a tactical position of defense. What I do see is a more effective defense.

Can you give an example?

Take the India v GB Game. India, were successful sitting with a deep defense that was brought about by a red card. But they were incredible. The discipline. The focus. It was the single best Indian defensive performance I have ever seen across my entire hockey career.

But that doesn’t mean their defensive wall can’t be broken or that they can’t go down the other end and score. What it creates is great end-to-end hockey loved by fans and that the hockey purists and tacticians can break down and analyze. There are little micro games happening within games.

By that analysis is, do you see the attacking game evolving too?

The attacking game is continually evolving with the strength and speed of our players. We have some of the most conditioned, hybrid athletes that I think the world has ever seen. We've got endurance bases that would rival the endurance sports and the speed at which the players run for long periods of time, and often in high temperatures, is phenomenal. Add to that the dexterity of these players – their ability to take a small ball on the end of a three-foot piece of carbon, and dribble and manipulate it in tiny tight spaces with incredible agility, and you have a recipe for astounding attacking performances.

So I think we're in a great attacking position. My only question is whether we're playing a little bit too fast which makes it difficult to story tell and, perhaps, encourages our young players to focus on speed before skill development.

Both finals went to shootouts. Is this going to be an increasing feature of the game at the top level?

Without the data in front of me, it does feel like we're getting a few more shootouts. But it doesn't feel like we're getting them at nil-nil. So we're still seeing open end-to-end play. Potentially, we could see more because I think defenses are now better and goalkeepers are better. So, if you get into the last ten minutes of a game and a team is pushing for a win, I can see how that the draw scenario would play out more in those dying minutes because of defensive intensity and integrity.

Is this good or bad for the game?

I think most athletes would like to win in normal time. However, it is certainly better to win on the current shootout compared to the old days of the penalty spot shootout. That was just a lottery – a roll of the dice for the goalkeeper on which way to dive. There is a lot of skill involved in shootouts. I like the dynamism and the complexity of it which you can see in the error and success rates. Whether we see more of them or not, they are a valuable and exciting part of the game.

There’s been much chat about penalty corners. What went on in Paris?

We saw the lowest percentage conversion rate on penalty corners in Paris than in any of my records from the last 12 years of commentating. The turf played brilliantly and the stop was pretty clean. The error rate was low, so I think the reason for the lack of conversions was twofold.

It’s an Olympic games. Players are consciously or subconsciously prepared to do more than they've ever done before. So consequently, I think the number one and two runners were incredibly effective at intervening.
The strongest goalkeepers that I’ve ever seen. Quite often you'll get one or two standout goalkeepers per tournament. This time there were five or six across both men and women and that then meant that when those shots got past the runners, the goalkeepers were saving them.

So it wasn't that the flickers weren’t flicking well. It wasn't that the attacking routines were any slower. The majority of shots were on goal. I genuinely think the energy, passion and execution of defensive players were such that it stopped goals being scored.

“The majority of shots were on goal. I genuinely think the energy, passion and execution of defensive players were such that it stopped goals being scored.”

Who were your standout players?

You can’t look past the Dutch women. Felice Albers and Yibbi Jansen were pure class. I thought Stephanie Vanden Borre from Belgium was amazing. Gu Bingfeng from China was also fabulous.

In the men’s, Germany’s Hannes Müller shone and José Basterra from Spain, who isn’t one of their big-name players, did some amazing things. Floris Middendorp from the Netherlands stood out as a catalyst player even with the better-known names around him. We were spoilt for talent.

The Paris 2024 Olympic Games hockey competition took place on Poligras Paris GT zero turf from July 27th to 9th August.

Poligras is available globally through Polytan in EMEA, Asia Pacific and Australasia, and AstroTurf in North and South America as well as our global installer network.

InterviewLuc Identity16 September 2024Trusted & Chosen, Olympics, Poligras Paris GT zero