Wrong end of the stick
Hockey New Zealand is deluding itself if it thinks scape-goating former coach Mark Hager will shut the lid on the Blacks Sticks review fiasco.
A former Black Sticks women’s team stalwart told Stuff that ‘‘a big cleanout’’ of Hockey New Zealand management and ‘‘a complete fresh start’’ to the coaching and management team is needed to put the team on track for the Tokyo Olympic Games next year.
The player, who did not want to be named, felt Hager, who coached the Black Sticks to last year’s Commonwealth Games gold medal, ‘‘got the best out of us’’ during a decade in charge, although there were ‘‘some things that needed to be fixed’’.
Her scorn was more directed at Hockey NZ. She was livid some review participants only learned of the review outcome through a media release on Monday. She said that was ‘‘typical’’ of Hockey NZ’s poor communication.
The Hockey NZ board’s derisory ‘‘release’’ of findings from an independent review has raised more questions than answers.
Lawyer Maria Dew QC allegedly found 24 of 33 current and past players she interviewed had ‘‘serious concerns’’ about a ‘‘negative environment’’.
But Monday’s ‘‘summary’’ amounted to three-and-a-half pages – after a review which encompassed 65 interviews and the examination of 58 documents. The ‘‘summary’’ was alarmingly short on specifics. Instead of giving more morsels of what actually happened, Hockey NZ board chairman Mike Bignell hid behind a convenient ‘‘confidentiality’’ excuse. Dew, as reviewer, was not even present to answer media questions.
Hockey NZ has not shown the full findings to the review participants or the Hockey Players Association, which demanded the review in the first place. Contrast hockey’s opaque approach to the High Performance Sport New Zealand’s 2018 review into Cycling New Zealand, which revealed details about a drunken night in Bordeaux, which led to a dysfunctional track team culture.
No one expects a review summary to tag individuals’ names to damning comments, but hockey’s should have detailed specific allegations.
Without evidence, it is hard to refute Black Sticks benefactor Sir Owen Glenn’s claim that Hager, who quit New Zealand in January to coach England and Great Britain, had been constructively dismissed.
How do we know – given Hockey NZ’s heavily redacted release – whether the 24 players had genuine grievances? Was Hager horrible? Or did the complainants simply need to toughen up? After all, a ‘‘negative environment’’ in one person’s eyes can be a ‘‘winning culture’’ in another’s.
Bignell says: ‘‘This is a hardworking group of women, many of whom balance full-time employment or study with the demands of training to perform at the highest level against teams that are fully professional.’’
He insists: ‘‘There’s no doubt these women are tough.’’
But, how do we really know, without knowing the nature of the ‘‘negative environment’’?
Hockey NZ is clearly hoping the problem has gone away with the ticking of the review box.
Yet its ham-fisted handling has done a disservice to a lot of people – Hager, the players, the hockey public and Maria Dew, whose detailed findings have been concealed behind the cloak of confidentiality.
Hager could be seen as the convenient fall guy. Yet, if he was so bad, why would Great Britain Hockey – a more successful organisation than Hockey NZ – appoint him? After the review summary, GB Hockey confirmed Hager’s job was secure and asserted it had done ‘‘due diligence’’ before appointing the 54-year-old Australian.
Hager had seen a draft copy of Dew’s review before he left for England, but it should not be assumed he jumped before being pushed. What self-respecting coach would have stayed?
All the public know is Hager penned an email – which was inadvertently sent to the whole team rather than a fellow management team member – which contained criticisms of some players after the Black Sticks’ underwhelming 11th
‘‘[Hockey NZ’s] hamfisted handling has done a disservice to a lot of people.’’