Indian Hockey & Sansarpur Hockey

Sl.No.		Sub  Factors	Agree	%	Disagree	%	Undecided	%
	8.1	Modern hockey is better than traditional hockey	04	8 %	46	92 %	-	-
	8.2	Astro - turf game is better than grass - court game	12	24 %	37	74 %	01	2 %

       Only four of the respondents ( i.e. 8% ) consider modern hockey better in comparison to traditional hockey and only 12 ( i.e. 24% ) feel that Astro-turf is more suitable for us as compared to grass court.  Thus, overwhelming majority of respondents favour Indian style of hockey and grass as the suitable playing surface.

      Udham Singh Kullar is against the modern concept of total hockey and feels that traditional 5-3-2-1 formation, the best suited formation for Indian hockey.  Udham Singh Kullar is a great admirer of traditional hockey and feels that the recent changes in rules of hockey has robbed the modern hockey of much of its charm.  He feels that modern hockey is not Sohal esthetically pleasing.  In traditional hockey days of his time, “ bully off” and penalty bully etc. Were real treat to watch and called for artistic flair of the game says Udham Singh Kullar.  Where as modern hockey is simply a hit and run business which laids great emphasis on physical fitness but beauty of the game is sacrificed in the name of speed.

      Udham Singh Kullar feels that Astro-turf is neither a fordable nor suitable for players from Indian Sub Continent.  He says that to play on Astro-turf one needs a physical fitness, stamina and speed at a level where we cannot compete with European players.  He feels that grassy grounds  are more suitable for Indian players and clay ground ( Chat ) is the most suitable for us it requires least money to build a ground  and maintain it and provide fast hockey.  Udham Singh Kullar also feels that if Astro-turf were available during his playing days, India would have scored more goals as it is easy to play on Astro-turf because of its smoothness and he himself and his contemporary Indian players were fit and fast enough to play on this surface.

      While comparing the modern hockey with traditional hockey, Balbir Singh Kullar  feels that modern hockey is more attractive to watch as more goals are scored, a less of whistling takes place, making the game most spectator orientated.  In relation to hockey playing hockey surfaces, Balbir Singh Kullar  feels that though Astro-turf provides a faster of hockey is a true surface conducive to power hockey and a suitable surface to play even during rainy season but the surface has reduced the life span of players as they tried to burn out early and also because of the fact that Astro-turf is more injury prone and content playing in this surface may lead to Asthmatic problems.  Where as grass hockey presents completely contrasting hockey where the game though slower calts for crafty skills and techniques and is esthetically more pleasing and a green field is good for eyes and is free from health hazards.

Darshan Singh Kullar feels that the traditional hockey was superior to modern hockey as it involved the artistry, skills and class of highest order, which could be appreciated by the knowledgeable viewers of these days.  Whereas the modern hockey is only a bit and run business and is not much of a treat to watch.

      About Astro-turf also Darshan Singh Kullar has similar views.  He feels that Astro-turf and other such artificial surfaces are more suited to the players of European countries who are physically fitter. 

      Parkash Singh Kullar feels that Chat ground is fast better  than grassy ground.  The movements on Chat ground can sometimes be Sohal fast that spectators are bewildered and they get real joy out of the game.

      In the words of Mohinder Singh Padani, modern hockey depends on long straight passes and thus a lot of time is wasted.  Where as traditional hockey depends on game skills and short through passes, which were more eye catching.

      Mohinder Singh Padani feels that hockey on grass is better than Astro- turf.  Hockey as the game becomes more beautiful and entertaining for the spectators when played on grass.  Astro-turf is not suitable for a country like India as it is very costly and due to climatic conditions and physical fitness of an average Indian player, it is harmful for the players also.

      Modern hockey is breft of artistry and skills and is not Sohal pleasing to watch.  Where as traditional hockey was more graceful and entertaining to the spectators.  Astro-turf is very expensive, not suitable for health of players.  Climatic conditions of India are not suitable for its use as due to hot weather, it requires constant watering which leads to Asthmatic problems for players.  As playing on Astro-turf takes a heavy toll of one’s body, the life of a player reduces.  On the other hand grass ground is conducive to players health especially for their eyes.  The hockey played on grass is esthetically more pleasing to watch as a player on grass can show his skills and artistry of the game.  The playing life of a player is more on grass as compared to that at Astro- turf and it is much cheaper too.  Chat ground is cheep and best.  Although playing on Chat ground puts some strain on a player ankles, the game on Chat ground is as fast as game on Astro-turf provided it is properly maintained. ( Jarnail Singh Kullar )

      Jaswinder Singh Kullar  prefers traditional hockey over modern hockey and says that in traditional hockey ball used to be in play for longer duration and spectators, players and even refrees used to have greater enjoyment.  He feels that Astro-turf is better than grass court but warns that play on Astro-turf successful one needs to have practice of playing on the surface.  If one practices at grass ground and plays tournaments and matches on Astro-turf, he can not do well.  Therefore, Sansarpur should also get a Astro-turf as now most of international tournaments are played on this surface.

      Lal Singh Sohal feels that traditional hockey was superior to modern hockey as traditional players possessed greater control over the ball and their mastery over the game was of high calibre, their moves were never used to go a bagging.  They were team players and very skillful and the game was more interesting.  Where as modern hockey is a hit and run affair and has no such spectator interest.

      Though he does not prefer Astro-turf as he feels that it is not suitable for Indian players.  According to him game on Astro-turf makes greater demands on physical fitness of the player on one hand and is a costly affair on the other hand.  However, the game on Astro-turf is fast and it is easier to give accurate passes as the surface is smooth.

      Pritpal Singh Aassi prefers traditional hockey was esthetically more pleasing as return passes, winger’s crosses, ino-trio and into-in etc. Were a real joy to watch. All these techniques are missing from the modern hockey which has become a mere hit and run affair.

      Prefers grass court over Astro-turf as he feels that Astro-turf hockey does not calls for many skills and even a novice can play on this surface.  Moreover, in playing on Astro-turf, there is greater risk of injury to a player especially ankles and knee of a player become more susceptible.  Astro-turf also reduces the playing age of a player as one can play on this surface upto a maximum of 30 years, where as grass hockey is the real test of skills of a player and a good player can easily be singled out from mediocors while playing on grass.  Playing age of a player also increases on this surface. 

Filed under: Factors