The Curriculum Vitae section on Ric Charlesworth’s website is a long list. It spans hockey, cricket and football. He’s won Olympic and World Cup medals for the Australian hockey team as a player and coach; he has captained the Western Australia cricket team; and he has been a High performance Consultant with the Fremantle Dockers football team. Charlesworth also worked with Indian hockey as the men’s and women’s teams’ technical advisor for four months in 2008.
The list then traverses to another discipline: medicine. Holding an MBBS degree, he served as the commissioner of the Better Health Commission in 1984-’85.
A couple of years before that, he was elected as a Federal Member of Parliament in Perth. He is among the greatest living polymaths in world hockey.
At the Hockey World Cup in Bhubaneswar, Charlesworth, who’s part of the TV commentary team, spoke to Scroll.in regarding the tournament, the future of hockey, the Indian team and more.
Excerpts:
How’s the World Cup been so far?
It’s been interesting. There’s been some good hockey. Now, we get down to the business end, don’t we?
There were a few surprises in the group stage, especially France beating Argentina.
Yeah, there are always surprises in a competition like this. We’ll see some more.
There’s been a lot of emphasis on penalty corners – and rightly so. How has it evolved over the years?
Oh, it has changed a lot over the years. It used to be hitting the ball hard. Now, it’s flicking the ball hard. Occasionally, we see someone hit one. We saw Amit Rohidas doing it [against Canada]. I think there’s power, there’s placement, there’s variations. And, quality of the goalkeeping is important.
Now, there are more defensive equipment compared to the past. Has that made a big difference?
I think penalty corners are still a significant scoring opportunity. More than 50% of goals are coming from penalty corners. You have to be able to do them if you want to win the tournament.
What do you think is a good penalty corner conversion rate in today’s hockey?
If a team gets 20-30%, that’s pretty good. You probably score more than half your goals from corners.
From your playing days, would you say that hockey has changed for the better?
The rules are much better than they were in my playing days. Still, some things you can make better. But there are a lot of things… the self-pass, the fluency of the game – less whistles, the overhead balls, even hitting the ball on the edge… all of those things have improved.
There are more changes coming up. Especially, the Hockey 5s…
Yeah, I am not a fan of the Hockey 5s. I think I understand that maybe for the countries that don’t have so many players or facilities, can do that. But… I don’t like it. I think there’s less skill, it’s less interesting and it’s about power – bashing the ball to the net from wherever you are. I think hockey on a conventional field with a 11 or nine players is a better game.
Now, second-rung countries can play hockey on grass again. Will that impact the game?
There’s always been grass hockey. We still have it in Australia. But for the game at its best, I think, these sort of [artificial] surfaces are better.
Why does hockey struggle for popularity despite it being a fast-paced game?
Maybe it’s too fast. Soccer’s slower. There’s still so much happening. But people can see it. The ball’s bigger. Hockey has to make a niche for itself. We have to be better at selling it. But it’s a game about skill, speed and guile. They are good things. It’s not brute force. So much in this game that’ll be interesting for people. It should have a place in the sporting hierarchy. It’s pretty hard to compete with some sport with a big mass media following and publicity.
What do you think can be done to make it more popular?
You just have to find a niche, you have to keep it simple – so people can understand what’s going on, you have to make the rules safe. I believe a game with nine players is better than 11 because there’s not much space on the field to move around.
Talking about Indian hockey, despite the talent, they have fallen short of their best in crucial games. Like the Asian Games semi-final against Malaysia, a lower-ranked side. What do you think is the reason?
You can’t expect to win everything all the time. India’s made a lot of progress in the last decade. They now have a very good team. They can contend for the major competitions, try to win them all the time. What happened in the Asian Games is an aberration. Hopefully, they have learnt a lesson from that – you can’t take anybody too easily. I think they have played better and better over the last decade. Now they are a team that you ought to fear – else, they’ll beat you.
India’s coach Harendra Singh had said that he’s never seen a fitter Indian side than the current team. Would you agree with that?
Well, I haven’t got any hard figures. But they have speed and agility and are young. But they should be able to compete. I never thought fitness was an issue with India.
What are your thoughts on the constant change of coaches in the Indian hockey setup?
I think the easy option is to change the coach. But if you want to work with the players and build a team, then, you need time to do that. You can’t do it immediately and can’t expect everything to be perfect all the time. End results will go up and down. This is not perfect science or mathematics. It’s human behaviour.
So, what should be the ideal period a coach should be given to nurture the team?
I reckon you need four to six years to get it right. After that perhaps you can be there too long. But you need that time to get that optimal outcome.
Do you see the Indian hockey team dominating the world again?
I think it’s possible. But they’ve got some more steps to go through yet. You’d like to see in India, development programmes where a lot of talent comes through. You’ve got a lot of people in India. Hockey needs to made attractive here and the talent needs to be nurtured. If you do that, there’s no reason why India can’t be a dominant force.