In this episode of Studio Hockey, we dive into a riveting discussion with Michael Nobbs. A figure whose life and career span the rich global landscape of field hockey. Michael Nobbs represented Australia at the 1984 Olympics and later brought his expertise to coaching India’s national team from 2011 to 2013, notably leading them back to the Olympic stage after missing the 2008 Beijing Games. Hockey runs deep within his family roots: his wife Lee Capes won gold with Australia in Seoul 1988, his daughter Kaitlin was part of the Australian team at the Tokyo Olympics and his brother in law, Mark Hager, is currently coaching the Kookaburras, the national men’s team of Australia. Michael stands not only as a seasoned player and coach but also as a mentor and a fighter, having battled cancer twice—a testament to his resilience and enduring passion for the sport.
How are things going since your coaching days?
Kicking off the conversation, Jaspreet asks how life has been for Michael since stepping away from top-level coaching. Michael shares that he’s now happily playing the part of a supportive dad, following his daughter Kaitlin’s hockey journey and enjoying a less pressurized relationship with the sport. “She won’t let me come anywhere near anybody. Now I’m just the dad—no longer involved at top level hockey coaching,” he jokes. However, Michael hasn’t left hockey behind completely. He continues to mentor coaches worldwide and focuses on skills development for young athletes, sometimes conducting online sessions. Despite being on the sidelines, he finds joy in watching games, often via livestreams, and reconnects with the hockey community whenever possible. Especially with friends in India: “There’s always something going on in India which is catastrophic or calamitous, which is always so much fun to talk about.”
How does hockey help you through tough times, like your battle with cancer?
Jaspreet highlights Michael’s personal battle with cancer, mentioning his determination to join this podcast even during challenging times. Michael replies that hockey is more than a game—it’s a support network and a source of motivation. He shares a touching story about the hockey community’s generosity, recounting how they rallied to help Grant Schubert, whose daughter has a severe disability:
“What I’ve often found in hockey is the fact that it’s a real family. All the people that I used to play against are all friends of mine. We used to battle the hell out of each other… But as the years go by, we ring up and say, ‘Can I come and stay at your place?’”
For Michael, this camaraderie and shared passion have provided strength and positivity throughout life’s challenges.
Why have so many Australian coaches ended up in Indian hockey?
Jaspreet finds it remarkable that Michael, along with fellow Australian greats Ric Charlesworth and Terry Walsh, all coached India. Michael traces this back to a unique blend of backgrounds and cultural exchanges. Growing up in Perth, he was coached by Indian-born mentors due to migration waves in the 1960s:
“All of my coaches were Indians. So I learned the Asian style of playing, which then helped Australia develop into kind of a mixture between Asian and European style hockey.”
This cross-cultural foundation shaped not only his playing but also his approach to coaching. Reflecting on the challenges his colleagues faced in India, Michael emphasizes, “Unless you understand the Indian culture, you’re going to fail miserably—quickly.” He recounts humorous and poignant anecdotes about the difficulties foreign coaches faced, sometimes because of language barriers or clashing leadership styles.
What did you learn from coaching in Japan and India?
Ernst is curious about Michael’s experiences coaching in Japan and India, and asks what lessons he took away both as a coach and a person. Michael notes vast cultural differences, describing the Japanese as “very robotic” in their discipline—“They’ll just keep running, running, running, until they drop over dead,”—while Indian players sometimes take a more creative approach to discipline. Importantly, Michael highlights the “stories behind the athletes,” noting that many players come from challenging backgrounds but possess astonishing resilience and determination. Recalling individual tales, like a player who studied for his master’s degree under a streetlamp, Michael shares:
“Everybody’s got a story to tell.”
This awareness taught him the value of compassion and truly understanding his players’ journeys, a lesson that influenced his coaching philosophy:
“I learned a lot about compassion and helping people from especially the Japanese. And then that helped when I was coaching India, to start to really talk to the players, really get an understanding of where they’re from and what they’re doing.”
How did the Australian Institute of Sport influence your career as a coach?
Jaspreet wonders about the influence of the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) on Michael’s coaching. Michael clarifies that AIS, established in the early ’80s, was a response to Australia’s disappointing 1978 Olympic results and initially focused on integrating sports science. “We started to bring scientists in to develop the human body so we could be faster, stronger,” he explains, but notes it was some time before the Institute truly began developing coaching expertise. While the AIS improved athlete support and planning for life after sport (“You can’t be in the Institute unless you’re studying or you’ve got a job”), Michael’s own coaching skills came mainly from learning directly alongside other experienced players and mentors.
What were the main differences between coaching in India and Australia?
Ernst asks about the contrasts between coaching in Australia and India. Michael explains that the key difference is the survival-driven culture in India:
“If you’re not in the Indian team, you’ve got no money.”
For many Indian players, making the national team is not only a point of pride—it’s a financial lifeline for them and often their families. This creates high stakes for selection and retention, making the coach’s role particularly sensitive: “When you drop somebody, that’s the end… and a lot of times the coaches will keep the older players on to keep the peace. But you find the performance will drop off.” Understanding these cultural and socioeconomic dynamics is crucial for any foreign coach hoping to be successful in India.
Would a more holistic development program benefit Indian hockey?
Ernst observes that Australian athletes are encouraged to study or have a job alongside their sporting commitments and asks if such a philosophy could help in India. Both Michael and Jaspreet agree: “Yes, they would,” Michael says, but expresses doubt about the practicality and challenges of implementation. Jaspreet mentions that some steps have been taken in India, including partnerships with universities that facilitate continued education for players. Michael supports these efforts, recounting how he “used to have to fill out all the visa forms because none of them could write. What are they going to do when they finish hockey?” Instituting educational and life-skills support, they agree, is vital for long-term athlete welfare.
Which players impressed you most during your tenure?
Ernst inquires about standout players from Michael’s days with India and elsewhere. Michael singles out Sandeep Singh for his character and resilience—despite setbacks, including a career-threatening injury, Sandeep returned to the national team and “helped me immensely… he was of outstanding character.” Michael also observes differences between European/Dutch hockey players—where education and alternate careers are the norm—and their Asian counterparts, for whom hockey often represents their main and only opportunity.
Why did so many foreign coaches have short tenures with India? Was coaching India seen as a golden opportunity?
Jaspreet asks Michael to reflect on the fates of several foreign coaches in India and whether the job was considered a “golden goose.” Michael offers a personal perspective: for him, coaching India was a way to give back, as he was coached by Indians throughout his formative years. “I just thought it was such an honor to actually do it,” he explains. The job’s inherent instability and political challenges were apparent: “I was never going to last five years… every morning you wake up, you find a brick wall and you run headfirst into it, and one day your head is going to really hurt.” When his own health suffered, he resigned, brushing off media rumors of being sacked and confirming the toll coaching India can take.
How did David John, a strength and conditioning coach, become head coach for India?
Jaspreet asks about David John, who transitioned from strength coach to interim head coach of India. Michael’s response underscores John’s versatility: “He’s always managed to think outside the box… very astute person about any sport.” John’s deep tactical understanding, acquired during their longtime collaboration, prepared him well to oversee the national team even beyond his fitness remit. Michael also touches on the importance of nutrition reform in Indian hockey, crediting David for insisting on dietary changes to improve players’ performance and endurance at major tournaments.
Why did India struggle at the 2012 Olympics?
Delving into the disappointing outcome at the London 2012 Olympics, Jaspreet asks for Michael’s inside view. Michael reveals that players’ motivations and off-field dynamics often took precedence over team goals. He recalls learning that players were guaranteed financial security simply by making the Olympic squad, leading some to prioritize selection over performance: “The players were only concerned about making the Olympics because they were set up for life.” Internal cliques and monetary incentives led to on-field rifts: “I found out Sandeep was getting $2,000 US for a goal off a penalty corner. The players that forced the corners said, ‘He’s getting paid, we’re not getting anything, so we’re not forcing corners anymore.’” It’s a candid, revealing look at the complexities behind a national team’s struggles.
How is hockey faring in Australia today?
Turning the focus to Australia, Ernst asks Michael to assess the game’s current status domestically. Michael is optimistic, noting hockey remains strong in states like Queensland, Victoria, Western Australia, ACT, and Tasmania: “It is growing and it is still pretty strong.” He mentions a significant investment of $178 million for new sports facilities in Perth, ensuring a bright future for elite development. However, there are challenges—New South Wales and South Australia have seen declining player numbers, with Michael lamenting, “We’ve lost probably 20,000 hockey players over the last four or five years. It’s just a disaster.” Despite this, the tradition of grassroots club competition endures as the foundation of the sport’s success in Australia.
What do you think of the Hockey One League and the direction of elite domestic hockey in Australia?
Ernst probes Michael about the impact and future of the Hockey One League, Australia’s replacement for the earlier national league. Michael supports the quality of hockey showcased but worries about logistics and costs in such a vast country: “To field one of those teams, you’re looking at $150,000… it would be better if we could play four teams in one location and then four teams in another.” He suggests a revamped model might be more financially viable and potentially attract government support. On a positive note, the rise in livestream coverage is a big win for the hockey community:
“The streaming side of it is growing rapidly though. Nearly all club games are streamed live in all grades, which is fantastic.”
Are there enough young players committing to hockey in Australia?
Jaspreet follows up by asking whether Australia still sees enough youth taking up hockey, despite the need to balance education and finances. Michael says yes, but points out new challenges—including overly ambitious parents: “We’ve got too many parents think that their child is going to represent the national team at 12 years old… and the parents are push, push, push, push, push.” His advice is for patience, as hockey is a game of long-term development, and biological maturity often isn’t evident until later teen years. Academies and clubs offer support to young players struggling financially, ensuring socioeconomic barriers don’t prevent talented kids from progressing.
Who can challenge India at the Asia Cup?
In his final questions, Jaspreet seeks Michael’s take on India’s prospects at the Asia Cup. Michael is confident: “If India play a monochrome of how they normally play, they will win that tournament comfortably… None of these other teams come within cooee of them.” Even China, with a new foreign coach, won’t pose a substantial threat in his view: “It might be slightly tighter defensively, but no, they haven’t got the firepower.” Michael stresses the need for India to continue investing in younger, more dynamic talent—“players that can score goals”—and not rely indefinitely on aging veterans.
What are your thoughts on Mark Hager coaching Australia’s men’s team?
To close, Ernst asks about Michael’s brother-in-law Mark Hager, who recently took charge of Australia’s men’s team. Michael is upbeat:
“I actually think he’s the right person. The style of hockey changes over the years… Mark is constantly on his players. Have a go, take a risk, break a line.”
He describes the shift in international hockey toward fast, attacking play, and believes Mark’s philosophy matches Australia’s talent. Michael offers a bit of coaching wisdom: “If you can hit four goals every game, you’re going to win 98% of your matches.” He looks forward to Mark’s tenure and even invites him to join a future Studio Hockey episode.
We hope you enjoyed this episode of Studio Hockey, the podcast that embraces both international and domestic field hockey from a uniquely global perspective. Join us next time, whether from Europe, Asia, or beyond…
Until then, happy hockey!
