Creativity in Hockey
Written by; Tao MacLeod
Creativity in sport can be a difficult skill to coach, to learn and to develop. However, it is one of the most important attributes for any athlete, player, or sportsperson at any level of participation. Creativity can be a source of entertainment, increasing the spectacle and thus enticing greater numbers of fans through the gates. It can also break down the opposition defences and create opportunities for success. Over the past few years I have started to think that field hockey has some issues with levels of creativity from those who compete within it, particularly across the British Isles. Can a team collectively change a game plan when something isn’t working? Can a player make alterations to they playing style, or behaviours in certain situations? Having recently watched the 2025 EuroHockey Championship, these thoughts have come to the forefront of my mind again. Some players are able to show some great levels of adaptation and creativity. Others are most definitely not. Let’s explore some of what I’m talking about…
What is sporting creativity?
Firstly, let’s try to define what creativity from a sportsperson, or team is and what it can look like. I would suggest that on an individual basis the ability to think for one’s self is a mark of inventiveness. The willingness to push the boundaries of the coach’s game plan can be important. To play it safe, well within boundaries set by the coach does not help the team when the game is in the balance and something needs to change. The senior players and the attackers on the pitch need to understand the game plane and its variations, but also have the courage to try new things and/or to push the limits of the coach’s influence.
Also, the ability to see and exploit space is an important one. The confidence to make the killer pass, the jinky run, or picture post card shot and the ability to do so is pertinent and often the key to the metaphorical lock when trying to pick apart the opposition defence. As is the mental resilience to take a chance, make a mistake and the ability to execute the action that gets spectators to the edge of their seat. Fundamentally players need to be able to anticipate what the opposition will do next, as well as read the game and make adaptations in real time – if the game plan isn’t working can those on the pitch figure it out for themselves?
Some of the hockey that I have seen over the summer has been quite exciting, normally played by those competing in the top domestic leagues around the world. Some players are able to try fantastic trick, dink, or flick, he or she has tried the outrageous attempt at goal and all of that is brilliant. However, on other occasions I have watched some games that would suggest that a few players are either incapable of changing things, or simply unable to show their creative side, potentially due to restriction put in place by the coach. It is these boring experiences I have had as a fan that I am calling out is this essay.
Art Over Science
There is a perennial question that often comes up across a variety of codes and games. Is sport a science, or an art form? Often the answer to this question depends on one’s perspective and contribution to their activity of choice. A sports scientist, or nutritionist will inevitably approach hockey (for example) with a more scientific point of view. The players, however, do have a separate task on their hands to those who work behind the scenes. Players have to solve problems during a match, to find solutions to the changing tactics of the opposition. Although game plans are developed and put in to place, often enough these practitioners are working on instinct. The truth is sport can be all things to all people and can be both artistic and scientific at the same time. What fans often enjoy, however, is what makes up the aesthetic.
In terms of football, Eric Cantona was an obvious purveyor of the beautiful side of the game. He saw sport as a performance, a spectacle, a form of entertainment. His abilities included a capacity to see space when others didn’t and the technical skills to put the ball where he wanted. This adroitness helped him to carry favour with the home crowd, with whom he developed a special bond similar to that a performing artist might with his or her audience. After retirement from playing Cantona did, in fact, go into the wider entertainment industries as an actor and a musician, carrying his playing ethos to his subsequent roles. Similarly, players such as Pelé, Diego Maradona and John Cryuff played with a freedom that was joyful to watch. They honed their skills as young players outside of the controlled environments of modern youth academies that we see today, in free for all games that required physical strength, as well quick wits so as to avoid injury. The intelligence that these people had and the instincts that they developed from the more chaotic experiences of their developmental years helped them at the elite level to understand what was about to happen next and to adapt to ever changing situations.
As sport has developed, players, coaches and fans have increased their understanding of tactics and strategy. Well organised teams have a greater chance of success, compared to a collection of individuals. The wonderfully attacking Latin American football teams of the 1950s, ‘60s and ‘70s would struggle to win trophies in the same manner in the modern era, due to the better organised defences of the mid-range teams. This mentality has come across to field hockey. The Asian sides such as India and Pakistan have had to make changes in terms of playing style in recent years, compared to the freedom in which their athletes played with during the height of their success. Players throughout a squad interpret the game the same way, with few people challenging the tactical conditions of their team. This lack of diversity of thought and playing style can produce a monotony. Sometimes a game of hockey can be like watching paint dry.
Innovation from coaches and teams
Players are not the only practitioners who can show their creativity. Sport has produced a variety of examples of people doing differently to the norm. In terms of tactics Johan Cryuff, alongside Rinus Michels, was a proponent of the playing philosophy Total Football. This was a tactical system that any outfield player could take over the role of any one of his, or her, team mates. It started whilst playing at his first club Ajax of Amsterdam, but was later developed by the Dutch national team and FC Barcelona, whilst a player and then as a coach. Having retired from playing in 1984, he followed his mentor, Rinus Michels, into coaching. Cryuff took the top job in Amsterdam and then Catalonia. Here he continued a flexible playing style that encouraged mobile defenders and attack minded forwards. This was then latterly built upon by, amongst others, Pep Guardiola at Barcelona, Bayern Munich and Manchester City.
In terms of methodology the British Olympic & Tour de France cycling teams saw a development of the Marginal Gains philosophy. Headed by Dave Brailsford, it looked to make small improvements across the board in fitness, tactics and equipment. This was a focus that hadn’t been happening elsewhere, but latterly taken up by opponents and those in other industries such as business. The spotting and taking advantage of gaps in the ‘market’, for lack of a better word, can show an inventiveness from those working as backroom staffers.
Creativity in Hockey
Does hockey produce examples of tactical, or methodological innovation? Perhaps the development of equipment, particularly in goalkeeping kit and astroturf pitches pushed the game forward, but these weren’t done by specific coaches and happened several years ago now. Similarly the rule changes are made by administrators. The question is, has hockey become stagnant? Who, from those on the pitch and the side of it, in terms of players, or coaches, are moving the game forward?
Like I mentioned above, some players are able to take advantage of space and have good instincts, but these examples are lacking across the board. There is a shallow talent pool within elite hockey, partially due to it being a minority sport. British teams, in particular, seem to lack players who can take the game by the scruff of the neck and change the momentum in his or her team’s favour. This might be a hangover from our more recent success. The period between 2012 and 2016 where the English and British ladies teams won several medals including a Commonwealth Games silver medal, as well as golds at the 2015 EuroHockey Championships and 2016 Olympic Games came via a very controlled style of play, directed by the coach. After Danny Kerry has moved on in his career, we still seem to have kept this mindset. Is it time to move on? The men’s teams have made efforts to change their ethos, but haven’t quite gotten over the line just yet. There does seem to be some very good players in that squad. However, we will have to wait and see how they will progress after a disappointing Euros.
Additionally, I would suggest that there is a certain homogeneity to the type of players developed across the UK. The private school system still dominates the development of hockey across these islands. Most players come from similar backgrounds, having had parallel experiences in their sporting education and development, whilst learning from coaches singing from similar hymn sheets. Clubs can do more in terms of diversifying the talent pool and the sources of knowledge within the game, but there’s work to be done on that front. Also, we should encourage youngsters to go out and play hockey out with the organised structures that we are used to. Let’s allow the youth coming through develop skills in fun and social situations down at the park, in the way that footballers have been doing for generations. Let them explore their own cognitive abilities and learn to figure things out for themselves. Let them discover ways to stand out from the crowd.
