The unfortunate injury to Tom Millington, who suffered from back spasms in the game against East Grinstead that saw the side soldier on with a 'kicking back' has shown the need for a capable second choice goalkeeper ready in case of injury. In other sports, the back-up is compulsory, as with elite level ice hockey and aside from the need for healthy competition in all places (including goalkeepers), but in hockey and English hockey specifically, this isn't really the norm. And with this approach set in stone, one wonders, how are teams prepared to cope without elite talent in goal due to unexpected injury?
Wimbledon called up 21 year old second choice goalkeeper Chris Baker (a student at UCL where he was playing his hockey previously) to fill in for them without the chance to call upon Tom, who earned his colours at Loughborough Students and Exeter before solidifying his place at Wimbledon with their promotion run. All things considered, Wimbledon were pushing for a Euro Hockey League playoff place before Tom went down and in the circumstances, his understudy has done a good job as the starting goalkeeper. The nerves haven't got to him, some crucial saves have been made and he hasn't looked out of place, even if he has never played at this level ever before.
Games against Loughborough and Hampstead should have been 'easy wins' in the sense that the Surrey side managed to beat them both earlier on in the season, but both sides are hungry for the points, with HWHC looking to get enough points to see the clear of a final rush from Cannock say and Loughborough are battling hard looking to avoid the guaranteed drop zone.
And you can see him in action here, the only constructive criticism being to dive for the flick rather than use a splits attempt which missed the ball:
But aside from Chris' personal performance, Tom's injury shows the dire need for strength in the department which is a problem nation wide for our sport. Without a solid . Yes, the season is at its closing point, but what would the squad done if the injury had occurred earlier in the season at a more crucial point? What would they have done without a decent reserve choice? And considering the transfer window, would they have been able to bring in a short-term option?
What this essentially shows is the bottom line need for depth in hockey clubs. At the elite level, goalkeeping is some what lacking over the land. The 'English approach' is to go with an incumbent who plays every game rather than offering competition or being ready to drop a goalkeeper to refind their form. Is it because no-one wants to play in goal, or is it because the talent pool for goalkeepers is too small to ensure this kind of depth? Either way, it just goes to show the frailty of goalkeeping in English hockey, all things considered, by going with an incumbent all out without considering the possibility (however slight) of them getting injured.
Wimbledon called up 21 year old second choice goalkeeper Chris Baker (a student at UCL where he was playing his hockey previously) to fill in for them without the chance to call upon Tom, who earned his colours at Loughborough Students and Exeter before solidifying his place at Wimbledon with their promotion run. All things considered, Wimbledon were pushing for a Euro Hockey League playoff place before Tom went down and in the circumstances, his understudy has done a good job as the starting goalkeeper. The nerves haven't got to him, some crucial saves have been made and he hasn't looked out of place, even if he has never played at this level ever before.
Games against Loughborough and Hampstead should have been 'easy wins' in the sense that the Surrey side managed to beat them both earlier on in the season, but both sides are hungry for the points, with HWHC looking to get enough points to see the clear of a final rush from Cannock say and Loughborough are battling hard looking to avoid the guaranteed drop zone.
And you can see him in action here, the only constructive criticism being to dive for the flick rather than use a splits attempt which missed the ball:
What this essentially shows is the bottom line need for depth in hockey clubs. At the elite level, goalkeeping is some what lacking over the land. The 'English approach' is to go with an incumbent who plays every game rather than offering competition or being ready to drop a goalkeeper to refind their form. Is it because no-one wants to play in goal, or is it because the talent pool for goalkeepers is too small to ensure this kind of depth? Either way, it just goes to show the frailty of goalkeeping in English hockey, all things considered, by going with an incumbent all out without considering the possibility (however slight) of them getting injured.
No comments:
Post a Comment