.......Sky would increase their coverage because they know there would be interest.
If Sky increased 'their' coverage it would cost the EIHL more. As it stands the EIHL pay for the recording, editing and screening of all EIHL games, Sky just provides random slots in its schedule for the EIHL to fill, for a fee.
That's how it works now, if the demand for the sport increases, so will the demand for it to be broadcast. Which means that ESPN for example could fill the space, or eurosport, or BBC/ITV could throw it onto one of their 4 channels.
While it is a small sport it will cost to get it broadcast, as it increases in popularity companies will pay for it to be broadcast.
Shouldn't it be "why would ice hockey be big in Britain?" I mean, it would be really bizarre if it was, if the long established, British-born sports of football, cricket and rugby had genuine competition from a game played on a temperature of water we only see for about three days a year by a bunch of Canadians and Finnish.
Last edited by Bluebirds Boyo: 09-19-2012 at 03:35 AM.
Shouldn't it be "why would ice hockey be big in Britain?" I mean, it would be really bizarre if it was, if the long established, British-born sports of football, cricket and rugby had genuine competition from a game played on a temperature of water we only see for about three days a year by a bunch of Canadians and Finnish.
Well isn't it basically about media exposure which can bring investment in rinks and then make kids want to play.
Britain have won olympic gold medals in figure scating and curling....thats on ice as well? (and actually won gold medal in icehockey in 1936). If you talk about long established sports then hockey and for that matter lacrosse has been in Britain for a very long time. For some reason it just slowly through the decades lost more and more popularity and media exposure. Lacrosse for instance was once quiet big in Britain, but was until quite recently only really played in some towns south of Manchester as I remember. Now it seems to have a great renaissance because it resurfaced as a university sport. So the developement of cycling in Britain. Always been good in track cycling, but often only one guy in the Tour de France through 80's-90's and 00's. Then in the last couple of years a true explosion of talent. Sports are fashion-based. Kids choose what is "in". A sport can suddenly be out "in the cold", if it lose TV-exposure.
Individual sports can develop much faster than team sports. It isn't correct to compare cycling or similar sports with ice hockey. Many individual sports are inherently more natural (Or rather, easier to do) than ice hockey. It is also much much cheaper.
So yes, to a degree, some sports and their success are based on fashion. I would imagine Tennis for instance is a sport where you will see GB begin to excel at more and more over the coming years. For ice hockey, however, no such easier path exists. A random anamoly has much less impact, given the sport itself isn't played. People cycled, played Tennis etc before, but the investment wasn't perhaps there. With ice hockey, the numbers aren't really there, and those numbers don't get to train nearly enough, and are likely focusing on other avenues within their life too. Olympic funding can also be quite important, but funding isn't given to sports without medal chances. Especially within team sports, where the total medals given are much less, and where we already sit behind many other nations. The Winter olympics is also quite small here ; a novelty we enjoy from time to time.
An Andy Murray or Wiggins can make people want to do that sport a little more. A random NHL player can't, given he's playing across the other side of the world, playing a sport most people don't have access to. Much less inspiration than someone like Murray, who plays a sport which is widely enjoyed at a rec-level, where Britain has established and visible importance (Wimbledon) in the sport. We will see development in basketball i feel, and American football is more popular amongst our youths (A cult type sport at university). Lacrosse as mentioned above to a smaller extent has a stigma of being a cool cult sport at Uni level. Ice hockey doesn't really have this tie. It's not in the limelight in anyway.
In this current age, where so many sports compete for a finite pool, and where many other alternatives outside sport exist, it is up to exceptional management, investment and luck to change the fortunes. Not an easy thing to do.
We've actually got more registered players (and rinks) than countries like Denmark, Latvia and Belarus who have produced a few NHL players. So I don't think numbers are a valid excuse for not being able to develop good players.
Individual sports can develop much faster than team sports. It isn't correct to compare cycling or similar sports with ice hockey. Many individual sports are inherently more natural (Or rather, easier to do) than ice hockey. It is also much much cheaper.
What I have often seen as quite striking with british sports are that they often succesfull in individual sports but some team sports are generally abysmal.
When England won the rugby world cup in 2003 wans't it the first team sport gold medal for England since WC football 1960??
It seems only football, crickett and rugby where england is world class (though they rarely win), and then good in lacrosse and landhockey as well. But for instance handball, volleyball, basketball, water polo, ice hockey are way behind.
Maybe GB are very traditional in choice of team sports.....not like Russia that basically are good in most team sports. It seems Russians have the mentality that if there is medals to win at olympics there is opportunity.
GB still seems very commenwealth and very little continental in it's choices (for instance no handball, that is the second sport in Denmark).
So it need a change of perspective from media and people to look for new sports instead of all the old horses. Off course Rome wasn't build in 1 day, but at the olympics most people in GB didn't even know handball existed and then it's hard to choose as your sport as a kid. Icehockey is even worse since you need a rink and tv exposure to attrack kids - it's not a sport you can play in school or in the lunchbreaks.
We've actually got more registered players (and rinks) than countries like Denmark, Latvia and Belarus who have produced a few NHL players. So I don't think numbers are a valid excuse for not being able to develop good players.
Can't disagree with the rest of your post though.
Those nations are small and have small registered numbers. So our numbers are still an issue. Latvia has hockey as it's #1 sport, and Denmark/Belarus have better investment in the sport, with better organisations and coaching.
We may have more rinks, but if they aren't be used correctly or efficiently, what does it matter? Belarus is a prime example of this actually ; building many many rinks, yet no obvious improvement in their Junior system is superficially atleast, happening.
What I have often seen as quite striking with british sports are that they often succesfull in individual sports but some team sports are generally abysmal.
When England won the rugby world cup in 2003 wans't it the first team sport gold medal for England since WC football 1960??
British sport has developed alot in the last 10-15 years, and is taking upon a more important role in society. Without doubt investment is better aimed than it used to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justinov
It seems only football, crickett and rugby where england is world class (though they rarely win), and then good in lacrosse and landhockey as well. But for instance handball, volleyball, basketball, water polo, ice hockey are way behind.
England (UK) are one of the world leaders in sport. Not many nations have better sporting success. Football is obviously highly competitive, but we have the biggest economic league in the world. In Rugby we are competitive, and cricket we are elite. Other sports like handball, volleyball etc have no culture here. Few people care about these sports. Basketball you will see advancements in. London/Birmingham are highly diverse (Meaning Black) cities where the sport is popular. You will see inevitable growth here IMO.
You don't finish 3rd in an Olympics medal table without being a very good sporting nation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justinov
Maybe GB are very traditional in choice of team sports.....not like Russia that basically are good in most team sports. It seems Russians have the mentality that if there is medals to win at olympics there is opportunity.
GB still seems very commenwealth and very little continental in it's choices (for instance no handball, that is the second sport in Denmark).
Cricket and Rugby are two of the bigger team sports worldwide. It's unjust to stipulate handball etc are bigger than those two. Equal perhaps. We simply partipicate in a different variety of team sports, manufactured over time through culture. There are almost no nations in the world that succeed in most/all of the percieved "big team sports". Most team sports stem from different cultures.
GB finish 3rd and 4th in the medal table for the last two olympics. Given China/US have a large population advantage, we are basically finishing in the best plausible position we can. GB is a highly successful sporting nation. Yes we excel in different sports, but you are assuming the sports played in your area are more distinct worldwide than ours are. This is not the case.
The investment in Olympic sports is high, but obviously sports like handball will not recieve much investment, because frankly, what is the point? It would take many many years to reach
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justinov
So it need a change of perspective from media and people to look for new sports instead of all the old horses. Off course Rome wasn't build in 1 day, but at the olympics most people in GB didn't even know handball existed and then it's hard to choose as your sport as a kid. Icehockey is even worse since you need a rink and tv exposure to attrack kids - it's not a sport you can play in school or in the lunchbreaks.
Those nations are small and have small registered numbers. So our numbers are still an issue. Latvia has hockey as it's #1 sport, and Denmark/Belarus have better investment in the sport, with better organisations and coaching.
We may have more rinks, but if they aren't be used correctly or efficiently, what does it matter? Belarus is a prime example of this actually ; building many many rinks, yet no obvious improvement in their Junior system is superficially atleast, happening.
Yeah I know the number of players is abysmal considering the size of our population, but it isn't an excuse for why we can't produce NHL'ers, like you said the problems lie elsewhere
British sport has developed alot in the last 10-15 years, and is taking upon a more important role in society. Without doubt investment is better aimed than it used to be.
England (UK) are one of the world leaders in sport. Not many nations have better sporting success. Football is obviously highly competitive, but we have the biggest economic league in the world. In Rugby we are competitive, and cricket we are elite. Other sports like handball, volleyball etc have no culture here. Few people care about these sports. Basketball you will see advancements in. London/Birmingham are highly diverse (Meaning Black) cities where the sport is popular. You will see inevitable growth here IMO.
You don't finish 3rd in an Olympics medal table without being a very good sporting nation.
Cricket and Rugby are two of the bigger team sports worldwide. It's unjust to stipulate handball etc are bigger than those two. Equal perhaps. We simply partipicate in a different variety of team sports, manufactured over time through culture. There are almost no nations in the world that succeed in most/all of the percieved "big team sports". Most team sports stem from different cultures.
GB finish 3rd and 4th in the medal table for the last two olympics. Given China/US have a large population advantage, we are basically finishing in the best plausible position we can. GB is a highly successful sporting nation. Yes we excel in different sports, but you are assuming the sports played in your area are more distinct worldwide than ours are. This is not the case.
Actually my point was exactly that GB are a fantastic sport nation. But what struck me was that in olympic team sports GB doesn't do all that well. Football and land hockey are in the olympics (but how often do GB actually win any medals these days?) and rugby and cricket are not in the olympics at all. Of the olympic team sports like handball, vollleyball, basketball, water polo, icehockey GB is a non-presence. These sports have been in the olympics for decades, but still not any exposure in the GB. In Russia generally if a sport becomes olympic it will attract the interest of people and organisations.
My point was not really that handball was bigger than rugby or cricket, but that rugby and cricket are very "commonwealth" (worldwide distribution but almost exclusively within the old Empire) and not continental (france exception in rugby). The choice of team sport in GB compared with the rest of Europe is really different and may show a very conservative approach. As you say of new team sports in GB its American football, basketball and partly lacrosse. It all shows a north american influence and not a continental one. So since of the NHL is north american is seem double strange that GB still lack behind is icehockey.
My post was not at all intended to say GB are bad in sports, but that the choice of sport seem very strange just from Denmark.
Actually my point was exactly that GB are a fantastic sport nation. But what struck me was that in olympic team sports GB doesn't do all that well. Football and land hockey are in the olympics (but how often do GB actually win any medals these days?) and rugby and cricket are not in the olympics at all. Of the olympic team sports like handball, vollleyball, basketball, water polo, icehockey GB is a non-presence. These sports have been in the olympics for decades, but still not any exposure in the GB. In Russia generally if a sport becomes olympic it will attract the interest of people and organisations.
My point was not really that handball was bigger than rugby or cricket, but that rugby and cricket are very "commonwealth" (worldwide distribution but almost exclusively within the old Empire) and not continental (france exception in rugby). The choice of team sport in GB compared with the rest of Europe is really different and may show a very conservative approach. As you say of new team sports in GB its American football, basketball and partly lacrosse. It all shows a north american influence and not a continental one. So since of the NHL is north american is seem double strange that GB still lack behind is icehockey.
My post was not at all intended to say GB are bad in sports, but that the choice of sport seem very strange just from Denmark.
The reason we are no good at any team sports except football, rugby and cricket, is because most people are off playing football, rugby or cricket. It is difficult to be good at lots of team sports when 90% of the interest is in only 3 sports. You need lots of good athletes to make up a successful ice hockey/handball/whatever team, you only need one guy to win you a cycling Gold. Wales always had this problem in football, they've had some world class players who were generational talents like Ryan Giggs and Ian Rush, but the team never had enough depth.
Ice hockey's problems lie within the system, there's enough interest here for us to be at least regulars in the top group of the WC's, but national team organisation (team doesn't get enough time together + other things) and junior development just sucks.
Actually my point was exactly that GB are a fantastic sport nation. But what struck me was that in olympic team sports GB doesn't do all that well. Football and land hockey are in the olympics (but how often do GB actually win any medals these days?) and rugby and cricket are not in the olympics at all. Of the olympic team sports like handball, vollleyball, basketball, water polo, icehockey GB is a non-presence. These sports have been in the olympics for decades, but still not any exposure in the GB. In Russia generally if a sport becomes olympic it will attract the interest of people and organisations.
Football is a sport we do not enter for the Olympics. Field hockey we are a competitive solid nation, capable of winning occassional medals. It's not our fault Rugby/Cricket aren't in the Olympics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justinov
My point was not really that handball was bigger than rugby or cricket, but that rugby and cricket are very "commonwealth" (worldwide distribution but almost exclusively within the old Empire) and not continental (france exception in rugby). The choice of team sport in GB compared with the rest of Europe is really different and may show a very conservative approach. As you say of new team sports in GB its American football, basketball and partly lacrosse. It all shows a north american influence and not a continental one. So since of the NHL is north american is seem double strange that GB still lack behind is icehockey.
Of course, given we were head of the commonwealth. Those sports derived largely from us, hence, we play them. I find it odd that you think that is odd, yet think sports played in central/eastern europe like water polo isn't "odd".
Cricket/Rugby undoubtedly have greater international market pennetration than handball etc.
I fail to see how it is a conservative approach. I don't think the meaning of that word is applicable to this conversation. Our nations grew up and developed different cultures and sports. We don't play handball because we are conservative, we don't play it because we developed other sports which fillied our attention with. There is nothing more innately radical with sports like handball than cricket. We are as likely to take to handball as you are to cricket.
Our youth have a North American influence without doubt. The UK is much closer to the US than most of Europe culture wise. American football etc are very much university sports. It's easier to play at Uni, and advertised more given it's bigger in NA too than hockey, and it's probably seen as "cooler". Of course it's not as if we are good at American football, we simply have a more distinct small core of fans who like it.
The only American sport with immediate potential is basketball. The NFL does see London as a potential market, but until American football is played at youth level here, you won't see much progression. It's not going to overtake Football, and it's direct competition is Rugby, which is played regularly each winter in schools.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justinov
My post was not at all intended to say GB are bad in sports, but that the choice of sport seem very strange just from Denmark.
I don't find your choice of sports strange simply because you don't play our sports.
Outside of Football and going forward, basketball, there is no Team sport that is universally played everywhere. Most other team sports are much more regional.
My point was not really that handball was bigger than rugby or cricket, but that rugby and cricket are very "commonwealth" (worldwide distribution but almost exclusively within the old Empire) and not continental (france exception in rugby).
And then there's football. And tennis. And golf.
Great Britain has both founded sports and achieved in them to an elite-level against Continental Europe and the Commonwealth.
I imagine the reason why sports pursued in the former colonies are mostly team ones is due to them gaining popularity as a way for expats to bond.
Hockey over here, is like Football over in America/Canada...
I feel they're both trending upwards in popularity, but will never make it as a 'go to' sport...
To the Olympic topic... Our best sporting results come in sports where we sit down a lot - Cycling and Rowing... Stereotyping your Nation FTW!
I think you're being really generous to hockey. The 19-team MLS is on course to break 6,000,000 in attendance this season, at an average of over 18,500. What equivalent is there of hockey in Britain?
I think you're being really generous to hockey. The 19-team MLS is on course to break 6,000,000 in attendance this season, at an average of over 18,500. What equivalent is there of hockey in Britain?
To be fair, if you cut those numbers down to a third, it's a proportionately accurate estimation - attendance wise, at least. Even then, it's still a bit too high though.
A better American equivalent would be rugby, probably.
To be fair, if you cut those numbers down to a third, it's a proportionately accurate estimation - attendance wise, at least. Even then, it's still a bit too high though.
A better American equivalent would be rugby, probably.
Not really sure what you mean by that. Last figure I can find for EIHL (09-10) clocked in at around 750,000 for the season, average of 2,300. Not exactly comparable figures.
It's too rough and tumble for the Brits and French to play, and I say that only half in jest. Germans, Russians & other various Slavs, they take to it like fish out of water. It's a North American and Central/Eastern European game, that's just the way that it is.
Hockey is a combination of various British and Irish stick and ball sports played on ice, invented by British soldiers garrisoned in Canada in the late 18th and early 19th century. Hockey is essentially a British sport.
And it's a simple factor of weather more than anything... hockey was fairly big in both countries at the turn of the century, when a) cross-migration with Canada was at it's highest and b) winters in Western Europe were much more severe.
Would a better question be why is hockey so big in Canada, Finland, Sweden, Russia.
I've heard it many times hockey is in Canadians DNA.
Maybe months of natural ice, maybe we embrace winter and think of summer as playtime?
I dunno, but in this time of economic downturn we're still opening new ice pads in Canada.
Hockey isn't big in France and GB because it ain't that's all.
Yes I'm Canadian.
I put maple syrup on poutine. I think KD is a diet staple. Ketchup chips were a gift from the heavens and I think milk should only be sold in bags
And I truly believe that this is our alternative National Anthem http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx75Zoa_kVw
I think you're being really generous to hockey. The 19-team MLS is on course to break 6,000,000 in attendance this season, at an average of over 18,500. What equivalent is there of hockey in Britain?
Oh really? I thought MLS was still a 'not-really-cared-for-sport'
My bad haha...
But in terms of GB Hockeys success...
You can liken that to the American football team... Sure they've got Donovan, and a few that play over here... But they're not exactly a dominating force... They're better than our hockey team, but I feel that's a better comparable haha
Not really sure what you mean by that. Last figure I can find for EIHL (09-10) clocked in at around 750,000 for the season, average of 2,300. Not exactly comparable figures.
If you take into account the populations of the countries in which MLS is played compared to the population of the UK, and compare the attendances for MLS and EIHL ice hockey as a ratio drawn against the relevant populations, then EIHL ice hockey doesn't stack up too bad. Yes MLS still comes out on top but this is hardly surprising given the ease at which a spectator can become familiar with the sport, which in turn may drive their interest. I can kick a soccer ball about on just about any patch of grass near my home, how many cities in the UK even have ice rinks, let alone ice rinks featuring any ice hockey?
When the absolutely dominance of soccer in the UK as the number one team sport is taken into account and the ease by which individuals in any country can play/become familiar with it (boys in the park using hoodies as goal posts) the attendance figures for ice hockey in the UK aren't so bad.
