Hockey LTAD - Response from the North

 

The following statement is the official response to the LTAD document from the North Hockey Association. It follows a large number of meetings held throughout the North and was drafted by the North Youth Committee, including the North President Chris Darling, on behalf of the North Hockey Association.

 

·        The North supports the idea of a Single System for Hockey Development based on the philosophy underlying the national LTAD framework.

 

• The North applauds those who have researched and written the Single System for Hockey paper and recognises that this blue print provides the most comprehensive study plan that Hockey has ever had.

 

• The North agrees that hockey needs to support changes in practice to take our sport forward into the 21^st century.

 

Player Pathways

 

• We believe that, although it has been shown academically that on average girls mature faster then boys, there should be no difference in participation age ranges between boys and girls in hockey as this would become divisive and lead to unnecessary problems both in clubs and schools.

 

• We feel that appropriate competition is fundamental to players enjoyment and participation and that we will only recruit and retain young players if they are encouraged to participate in some form of competitive play from primary school age.

 

• We support the idea of setting up new junior play pathways but we hope that full costings, including the extra volunteer time, have been considered to ensure that these new structures are truly sustainable over time. 

 

• We believe that at regional academy level the vast geographical area of the North would require at least two Regional Academies.

 

• We whole-heartedly support the ideas to reorganise and restructure 18-21 player pathways, particularly the idea to involve Universities in a much higher profiled way. You have rightly pointed out that university hockey can play a vital role in developing elite hockey. We also need to ensure that we do not continue to loose players at 18 and need to look positively to encourage those who are introduced to the sport post 18 to participate after leaving education.

 

• We also welcome a move to help BUSA change and improve its competitive structure to promote higher standards in our sport. This is long overdue.

 

Player Pathways Structured Season

 

• We are worried that many volunteers would be over stretched and need a summer break and that many also play summer sports.
• We believe that the proposed length of the two cycle season is two long and would cause problems with boys and girls who wished to play summer sports along with hockey.

 

• We feel the idea that some hockey players who also play a summer sport would only need to attend one cycle will not work as pressure will be placed on them by those of their peers who are undertaking the full two cycles system.

 

• We suggest that some pitch facilities are turned over to other sports, such as tennis, in the summer and may not be available for hockey.

 

Competition

 

• We agree in principle to the need to safeguard younger players and ensure that they have developed their core skills but not all boys and girls develop at the same rate. In some cases players are more than capable both in skill, size and maturity to play senior hockey at 13 or 14, others should be kept away from senior competition until 16 or 17. To give a blanket age for junior participation in adult hockey is not in our opinion the right option.

 

• We believe that where a young player has shown outstanding ability and would benefit from exposure into adult hockey in the eyes of the parents, an accredited club and coach that written permission be given for such a player to participate in adult hockey before the age of 15.

 

• We feel that if we have to go to a minimum age for junior participation in adult leagues that this should at the age of 15 for both boys and girls, that is at the start of school year 10 (Key Stage 4). Any later and other adolescent interests will seriously damage the retention of players in our sport.

 

• We support your idea of developing rigorous junior competitive leagues but are worried that you might have under estimated the cost of setting up these leagues both in financial terms and volunteer time.

 

• We would prefer the 1st of September age qualification date for all school and club competitions with 1^st of January for all Talent ID purposes.

 

• Although we agree that the best interest of the junior player should be paramount we need to warn you that the result of implementation of the age restrictions for adult play will, in the North at least, lead to the loss of some adult sides and even some adult clubs. This is a major issue to many leagues and clubs.

 

• We feel that all present age group regional tournaments should be retained.

 

• We agree in the principle that players should not play in more than one age group in any one competition.

 

• We believe that young players should get maximum pitch time and that this is more important than sitting on a bench for long periods to obtain a supposed  ‘higher level experience’. We also believe that young players need to play in their own positions at every opportunity.

Delivery

 

·        We applaud your plans to develop a more rigorous club structure, which underpins both our sport and the development pathways.

 

·        We hope that Counties, or at least the Regions, will be included in the organisation and recruitment of both the Regional Academies and the Regional Academy Coaches.

 

·        We are concerned that it is possible that in the short term young players may well be pulled into playing for a small number of forward thinking accredited clubs.

 

·        We believe that clubs should not be the hosts for the Regional Development Centres but that University or LEA facilities should form the backbone of these centres so ensuring that players are not drawn away from their home clubs and into those clubs with superior facilities but are coached in more neutral venues.

 

 

In conclusion

 

As was stated at the start of this paper the North supports England Hockey in their move to a more structured and professional plan for developing hockey. We also thank EH for the level of consultation and information exchange, we realise that in some sports such a level of consultation has not taken place.

 

Over the past few months a great number of meetings at various levels have been in heated discussion about the future of our great sport and the Single System Plans that you have presented. If nothing else you have made the Clubs, Counties and Regions look seriously at themselves and our future.

 

Our concerns raised here should not be seen at massive criticism but rather shared concerns with, what we hope, are seen as positive suggestions for some amendments.

 

We in the North will continue to work with you to ensure that our plans for hockey move forward and provide

‘the most dynamic, vibrant and successful sport for all’

 

 

   Dave Miller

Chair North Youth Hockey